To contact us Click HERE
Also known as "oh no, we got a homework assignment on Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan."
Ta-Nehisi Coates, boss of bosses, has decreed that the Lost Battalion of the Horde should read Leviathan next as our social project of the season. Hobbes is in the grouping of must-read political thinkers as Locke and Rousseau: Leviathan is spoken of as the serious tract on politics compared to the borderline satire of Machiavelli's Prince.
That said, as a librarian I heartily recommend everyone wanting to keep up with TNC's reading project to ask your local library for a copy of Leviathan for check out. Better still, for those of you with ereader devices or a budding ebook collection should visit Project Gutenberg and download an ebook copy (most ereader formats available)!
To the bookshelves, Horde!
11 Şubat 2013 Pazartesi
Presidential Character: Week Five, The Unknown
To contact us Click HERE
Getting a little metaphorical here, so I'll explain.
I've gotten interested in tracking Presidential Character through reading the work on that topic by James David Barber. Thing is, his go-to source Presidential Character: The Novel only covers most of the 20th Century Presidents (up to, just barely, Bush the Elder 1988-92). He briefly describes the first four Presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison - only because they ironically provided near-perfect examples of the four character types - Passive-Negative, Active-Negative, Active-Positive, Passive-Positive - Barber charts. The first four are Introductories.
Which meant by the fifth guy on the hit list - James Monroe - anyone going by Barber to determine Presidential Character of any of the Presidents before Teddy Roosevelt was going to have to do a ton of original research. /headdesk Until we get to Roosevelt, most of these upcoming character reviews are delving into the Unknown.
Another reason why I'm using the word "Unknown" is due to the fact that Monroe is one of those forgotten Presidents. When people think of Presidents in historical thought they jump to the usual suspects of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts. Maybe Grover Cleveland only because he provides humor in non-consecutive jokes. In terms of contemporary history Eisenhower and upward are remembered due to the fact people alive today remember living during their tenures (and because, Tricky Dick, we are never going to forget you /damned with faint praise). But this means a large number of 19th Century Presidents get overlooked by the general populus: notable exceptions would be Andrew Jackson (who noticeably contributed to the term Jacksonian politics dominating most of the century) and James K. Polk (helps to have a They Might Be Giants song named after ya... and a million screaming Mexicans mad at ya).
It doesn't help that a majority of "bad" (read: ineffective) Presidents ruled during the 19th Century, rendering that part of American History a bit of a slog to study through. When nearly every historical interest of that era gravitates toward the giant black hole that is THE CIVIL WAR (seriously, go to any public library in the U.S. The largest non-fiction shelf section outside of cookbooks is gonna be the 973.7 shelves), the rest of the century suffers.
And it also doesn't help Monroe's case that he became President at the least conflicted moment in American political debate. Which is a shame because as one of the rare two-term Presidents of the 19th Century, and as one of the Active-Positive Presidents of the era, Monroe does deserve a lot more interest from historians. At least a lot more interest than in Grover Cleveland (and the non-consecutive joke is deployed. Ta-daaa).
Labeling Monroe as an A-P is risky because I'm not going by any established research from Barber. I'm basing my estimate of Monroe as this because he proved throughout his career an Adaptive and energetic role in a lot of major moments in history leading up to and during his Presidential tenure.
Monroe was the last of the recognized Founding Fathers to become President. He served as a young man in Washington's army during the Revolution. He became a protege of Jefferson's, serving in various duties when Jefferson worked as Governor of Virginia. Although he opposed the Constitution as it formed a too-strong central government by his estimates, he became an active part of that new government by becoming one of the first Senators of the first constitutional Congress. Serving his own stint as Governor of Virginia, he then moved on to working for Jefferson's administration and was sent as a diplomat to France... right at the time Napoleon was offering up the Louisiana Territory for dirt-cheap (literally) price.
Flashback to my article on Jefferson regarding the Louisiana Purchase: yes the final decision - and the rule-breaking to make that decision - was Jefferson's to make in his own A-P character. But Monroe was the guy on the ground: it was up to Monroe to decide right there in France whether or not to pursue Napoleon's offer. This was in the time of long-distance communication taking months: there was no immediate input from Jefferson or the U.S. government telling Monroe what to do. So Monroe, adapting to the situation, made the decision: he saw the opportunity for more territory, the chance of removing a European power from meddling in the western hemisphere, and the value of land being sold for 3 pennies per acre (seriously, that's dirt-cheap). Sending his colleagues back to Washington DC as quick as possible, Monroe stayed on in France securing the first steps in making the deal before Napoleon - notoriously impulsive - changed his mind.
The next clue to Monroe's character trait came during the War of 1812. Under Madison's poor management of the war effort, things were not looking so good for the home team. Right after the British invasion that led to the burning of the nation's capital - our lowest point - Monroe, then serving as Secretary of State, asked Madison to let him serve as Secretary of War (since no one wanted the Sec of State job Monroe continued at that task, making him the only person to serve multiple Cabinet posts at the same time). Under Monroe's guidance, the army got better organized. By this time, effective generals had been found - mostly through the weeding process of bad generals getting captured, killed or fired - and enough victories were had to let Americans feel the war ended as a victory for the nation (let's be fair: it was a tie between Great Britain and the U.S., and a moral victory for Canada).
As one of the heroes of the War of 1812, Monroe was a near unanimous choice to run for President in 1816 (albeit because most Democratic-Republican rivals took each other out of the equation). Having looked to Monroe's background to demonstrate his Active-Positive values, what does his Presidency demonstrate?
Monroe made the most of the "Active" part of being an Active-Positive. He was the first President to extensively tour the nation while in office. And while the tours had the appearance of "jubilees" and celebrations, Monroe did use these tours to talk policy matters with the citizenry: he took the tours seriously as part of his presidential duties. His other Active behaviors included selecting competent men for Cabinet posts that best suited them - John Quincy Adams to State, John C. Calhoun (that bastard, but smart enough to know how to organize a department) to War - after an era of less-competent men holding such offices.
The biggest piece of evidence of Monroe's Active tenure is the foreign policy stance that bears his name and remains a key foundation for all modern U.S. foreign policy (and is pretty much the only thing remembered of his tenure): The Monroe Doctrine. During the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, the colonies of Central and South America rebelled against their European overlords: with the wars in Europe over, those imperial powers - especially Spain and Russia - sought to re-conquer their lost colonies and the ones lost by a now-weakened France. As these newly-formed nations lacked a European sponsor the way the United States had when our nation rebelled, the potential of the Central / South Americans to form their own republics were threatened.
At the urging of Adams, Monroe issued his Doctrine. The United States would view any overseas aggression against any Central or South American nation as a threat to American sovereignty: meaning Worst Case Scenario that England - yes read on - will go to war over it. The United States would NOT intervene in any "internal" dispute between an existing colony and their European holder: which placated Great Britain because they were the only overseas Empire to not lose most of their Central / South American colonies, and helped to get them as an unofficial co-backer of the plan.
The United States - still reorganizing after the War of 1812 - may not have been in any shape to enforce the Doctrine, but it gave political cover to Great Britain to enforce protection of their own sea-faring empire (Pax Britannica). It had the political virtue of ensuring the nascent Latin American nations the room to build, and allowed for a gradual, progressive end of colonial rule within the Western Hemisphere. The Doctrine also created the underlying foreign policy belief of anti-colonialism that would influence American policy to this very day.
Other Active-leaning accomplishments were creating a treaty with Great Britain defining the U.S. / Canadian border (at the time) along with dismantling all fortifications by both sides, creating one of the longest undefended borders in contemporary history (future treaties with England and Canada would lead to the U.S. / Canada we have today as the longest undefended border in human history). I mentioned under Madison's entry last week that Great Britain traded away their holding of Florida as a far-sighted removal of a problem, but I erred to point out that their holdings were not Florida Proper (or what we know as Florida today): their holdings were the southern tips of what we now know as Alabama and Mississippi. Spain gained control of Florida as a Spanish territory as part of the solution for the War of 1812, and as obvious as anything there was conflict over it (as England figured, smart guys the Brits). Especially with native tribes in Florida raiding into Georgia. Monroe's Active move was direct and controversial: he sent Andrew Jackson in as general in charge of the armies and militia in the region to defend the border, and Jackson - ooooo, is THAT guy a sonofabitch, more on him later - led raids (he argued he had the authority, but most likely the SOB's Blood Knight character was the impetus) into Florida to fight the natives, angering up Spain with a legitimate international grievance. Whether or not Monroe signed off on Jackson's raiding, it did provide a stick to the carrot that Adams was using as Sec of State to negotiate Florida's purchase from Spain.
As for Monroe's Positive character traits, aside from the obvious relish of those national tours, Monroe reveled in the political game that being President provided him. He worked with Congress, passing a sizable amount of legislation covering taxes and reduction of the national debt. He presided over the period of five states being admitted to the Union, second only to (of all Presidents) Benjamin Harrison (Washington doesn't count because the thirteen original states were already part of the United States when he became President). Monroe did veto and oppose certain forward-looking bills such as the planned Cumberland Road funding based on his Republican-Democrat ideology of strict constitutionalism. Monroe had a hand - mostly behind-the-scenes - resolving the Missouri Compromise allowing Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state (alongside Maine, which began the practice of balancing the addition of a slave state with a free state) and banning slavery in any future states and territories north of Missouri's southern border.
The biggest reason common historical remembrance of Monroe is forgotten today is that Monroe ruled during a literal "Era of Good Feelings." The War of 1812 had burned away the passions for war that troubled the previous administrations. It helped that the chaos of France's revolution and empire had ended, quieting down most foreign policy concerns. Political partisan sniping faded into non-existence: the Federalist Party, broken by the national perception of them failing the nation during a time of war, died as a national power. Monroe pursued an inclusive administration above all other accomplishments. Monroe himself invited little controversy or scandal. Monroe became the second man to run unopposed for the Presidency since Washington: only a vote for John Quincy Adams by a rogue Elector prevented Monroe from becoming the second man other than Washington to unanimously win all Electoral College votes. It's ironic that such success makes a man forgettable: but history is more intriguing with intrigue; interest in history more focused on war and divided debate.
If there was any failing to Monroe's actions as President, it was that he failed to see the consequences of his primary goal of ending partisan strife (as noted, A-P Presidents never plan for the consequences of their acts). He may have created an Era of Good Feelings through efforts to incorporate Federalists into government and Federalist policy into his administration, and he may have tempered the back-room struggles of his fellow Democrats over who would lead the party... but he basically put a lid on a lit powder-keg by doing so. By leading with Federalist (pro-Union) ideology on a lot of issues, he angered up the Republican-Democratic states-rights' (which by this time devolved into Southern State dominance) believers. By refusing to choose a successor among the obvious candidates such as Henry Clay, William Crawford, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, or even John C. Calhoun (that bastard), Monroe created the environment for his own party to shatter into factions and re-ignite partisan divisions... only this time along more geographic lines and with more rancor than before.
A possible failing for Monroe would be the Missouri Compromise. Yes, it was a compromise over a contentious issue - the addition of a slave state further north than had been previously allowed, and in the Louisiana Territory where northerners hoped to apply the anti-slavery clauses of the Northwest Ordinance - but like all A-P actions it had consequences. It created the "You Shall Not Pass" line for slaveowners blocking them from northerner territories but allowed them to expand to the south of that line: That encouraged the strain of Manifest Destiny that drove the United States to aggressively pursue territorial acquisition into the Texas and California regions then held by the newly forged Republic of Mexico.
Another failing - more debated (not debatable, I mean it's more talked about, actually more shouted about) - was with the Monroe Doctrine: for all its political virtue, it also engendered a vice (again, something Monroe never saw coming). Future American governments interpreted the Doctrine to allow ourselves the power to meddle in the affairs of Central and South American governments. After all, it never limited what the U.S. could do in our own "back yard" (and it implied that the U.S. would intermediate for foreign powers under the right circumstance). For all the good things the Monroe Doctrine created (the gradual end of empire), it also created distrust among Latin American nations due to incursions ("filibusters") and attempted takeovers by American citizens looking to colonize for themselves. The Doctrine also bred the fervor for Manifest Destiny - combined with the long-term failure of the Missouri Compromise - that led to conflict with Mexico. The neoconservatives running around today crying all for military intervention everywhere - without thought of consequence and the destructiveness of war - get some of their "seeding democracy" argument from what the Monroe Doctrine sought to protect. And nowadays, just try talking about the CIA anywhere south of the Rio Grande and see if you can avoid getting punched in the face.
There's a lot about our nation today that formed from the actions of President Monroe: it's a little disappointing how our history books don't do a better job examining Monroe's administration and its effects on the rest of 19th Century and current American history.
Some print references to follow:
Whitney, David and Whitney, Robin, American Presidents 8th Ed., Readers Digest: Pleasantville NY, 1993, p. 47 - 54
Weinberg, Neil, "Waiting in Line at Mount Rushmore: Understanding the Rankings of Presidential Greatness" (2012). Senior Honors Theses. Paper 292. p. 32 - 34
If you have access to JSTOR, see if Murray, Robert and Blessing, Tim, "The Presidential Performance Study: a Progress Report, " Journal of American History, v.70 n. 3 (Dec. 1983) p. 535-55 has anything on character.
Please comment with more research suggestions on Monroe or on Presidential Character as defined by Barber. As I noted at the beginning, we're getting into uncharted waters here with the 19th Century Presidents...
I've gotten interested in tracking Presidential Character through reading the work on that topic by James David Barber. Thing is, his go-to source Presidential Character: The Novel only covers most of the 20th Century Presidents (up to, just barely, Bush the Elder 1988-92). He briefly describes the first four Presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison - only because they ironically provided near-perfect examples of the four character types - Passive-Negative, Active-Negative, Active-Positive, Passive-Positive - Barber charts. The first four are Introductories.
Which meant by the fifth guy on the hit list - James Monroe - anyone going by Barber to determine Presidential Character of any of the Presidents before Teddy Roosevelt was going to have to do a ton of original research. /headdesk Until we get to Roosevelt, most of these upcoming character reviews are delving into the Unknown.
Another reason why I'm using the word "Unknown" is due to the fact that Monroe is one of those forgotten Presidents. When people think of Presidents in historical thought they jump to the usual suspects of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts. Maybe Grover Cleveland only because he provides humor in non-consecutive jokes. In terms of contemporary history Eisenhower and upward are remembered due to the fact people alive today remember living during their tenures (and because, Tricky Dick, we are never going to forget you /damned with faint praise). But this means a large number of 19th Century Presidents get overlooked by the general populus: notable exceptions would be Andrew Jackson (who noticeably contributed to the term Jacksonian politics dominating most of the century) and James K. Polk (helps to have a They Might Be Giants song named after ya... and a million screaming Mexicans mad at ya).
It doesn't help that a majority of "bad" (read: ineffective) Presidents ruled during the 19th Century, rendering that part of American History a bit of a slog to study through. When nearly every historical interest of that era gravitates toward the giant black hole that is THE CIVIL WAR (seriously, go to any public library in the U.S. The largest non-fiction shelf section outside of cookbooks is gonna be the 973.7 shelves), the rest of the century suffers.
And it also doesn't help Monroe's case that he became President at the least conflicted moment in American political debate. Which is a shame because as one of the rare two-term Presidents of the 19th Century, and as one of the Active-Positive Presidents of the era, Monroe does deserve a lot more interest from historians. At least a lot more interest than in Grover Cleveland (and the non-consecutive joke is deployed. Ta-daaa).
Labeling Monroe as an A-P is risky because I'm not going by any established research from Barber. I'm basing my estimate of Monroe as this because he proved throughout his career an Adaptive and energetic role in a lot of major moments in history leading up to and during his Presidential tenure.
Monroe was the last of the recognized Founding Fathers to become President. He served as a young man in Washington's army during the Revolution. He became a protege of Jefferson's, serving in various duties when Jefferson worked as Governor of Virginia. Although he opposed the Constitution as it formed a too-strong central government by his estimates, he became an active part of that new government by becoming one of the first Senators of the first constitutional Congress. Serving his own stint as Governor of Virginia, he then moved on to working for Jefferson's administration and was sent as a diplomat to France... right at the time Napoleon was offering up the Louisiana Territory for dirt-cheap (literally) price.
Flashback to my article on Jefferson regarding the Louisiana Purchase: yes the final decision - and the rule-breaking to make that decision - was Jefferson's to make in his own A-P character. But Monroe was the guy on the ground: it was up to Monroe to decide right there in France whether or not to pursue Napoleon's offer. This was in the time of long-distance communication taking months: there was no immediate input from Jefferson or the U.S. government telling Monroe what to do. So Monroe, adapting to the situation, made the decision: he saw the opportunity for more territory, the chance of removing a European power from meddling in the western hemisphere, and the value of land being sold for 3 pennies per acre (seriously, that's dirt-cheap). Sending his colleagues back to Washington DC as quick as possible, Monroe stayed on in France securing the first steps in making the deal before Napoleon - notoriously impulsive - changed his mind.
The next clue to Monroe's character trait came during the War of 1812. Under Madison's poor management of the war effort, things were not looking so good for the home team. Right after the British invasion that led to the burning of the nation's capital - our lowest point - Monroe, then serving as Secretary of State, asked Madison to let him serve as Secretary of War (since no one wanted the Sec of State job Monroe continued at that task, making him the only person to serve multiple Cabinet posts at the same time). Under Monroe's guidance, the army got better organized. By this time, effective generals had been found - mostly through the weeding process of bad generals getting captured, killed or fired - and enough victories were had to let Americans feel the war ended as a victory for the nation (let's be fair: it was a tie between Great Britain and the U.S., and a moral victory for Canada).
As one of the heroes of the War of 1812, Monroe was a near unanimous choice to run for President in 1816 (albeit because most Democratic-Republican rivals took each other out of the equation). Having looked to Monroe's background to demonstrate his Active-Positive values, what does his Presidency demonstrate?
Monroe made the most of the "Active" part of being an Active-Positive. He was the first President to extensively tour the nation while in office. And while the tours had the appearance of "jubilees" and celebrations, Monroe did use these tours to talk policy matters with the citizenry: he took the tours seriously as part of his presidential duties. His other Active behaviors included selecting competent men for Cabinet posts that best suited them - John Quincy Adams to State, John C. Calhoun (that bastard, but smart enough to know how to organize a department) to War - after an era of less-competent men holding such offices.
The biggest piece of evidence of Monroe's Active tenure is the foreign policy stance that bears his name and remains a key foundation for all modern U.S. foreign policy (and is pretty much the only thing remembered of his tenure): The Monroe Doctrine. During the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, the colonies of Central and South America rebelled against their European overlords: with the wars in Europe over, those imperial powers - especially Spain and Russia - sought to re-conquer their lost colonies and the ones lost by a now-weakened France. As these newly-formed nations lacked a European sponsor the way the United States had when our nation rebelled, the potential of the Central / South Americans to form their own republics were threatened.
At the urging of Adams, Monroe issued his Doctrine. The United States would view any overseas aggression against any Central or South American nation as a threat to American sovereignty: meaning Worst Case Scenario that England - yes read on - will go to war over it. The United States would NOT intervene in any "internal" dispute between an existing colony and their European holder: which placated Great Britain because they were the only overseas Empire to not lose most of their Central / South American colonies, and helped to get them as an unofficial co-backer of the plan.
The United States - still reorganizing after the War of 1812 - may not have been in any shape to enforce the Doctrine, but it gave political cover to Great Britain to enforce protection of their own sea-faring empire (Pax Britannica). It had the political virtue of ensuring the nascent Latin American nations the room to build, and allowed for a gradual, progressive end of colonial rule within the Western Hemisphere. The Doctrine also created the underlying foreign policy belief of anti-colonialism that would influence American policy to this very day.
Other Active-leaning accomplishments were creating a treaty with Great Britain defining the U.S. / Canadian border (at the time) along with dismantling all fortifications by both sides, creating one of the longest undefended borders in contemporary history (future treaties with England and Canada would lead to the U.S. / Canada we have today as the longest undefended border in human history). I mentioned under Madison's entry last week that Great Britain traded away their holding of Florida as a far-sighted removal of a problem, but I erred to point out that their holdings were not Florida Proper (or what we know as Florida today): their holdings were the southern tips of what we now know as Alabama and Mississippi. Spain gained control of Florida as a Spanish territory as part of the solution for the War of 1812, and as obvious as anything there was conflict over it (as England figured, smart guys the Brits). Especially with native tribes in Florida raiding into Georgia. Monroe's Active move was direct and controversial: he sent Andrew Jackson in as general in charge of the armies and militia in the region to defend the border, and Jackson - ooooo, is THAT guy a sonofabitch, more on him later - led raids (he argued he had the authority, but most likely the SOB's Blood Knight character was the impetus) into Florida to fight the natives, angering up Spain with a legitimate international grievance. Whether or not Monroe signed off on Jackson's raiding, it did provide a stick to the carrot that Adams was using as Sec of State to negotiate Florida's purchase from Spain.
As for Monroe's Positive character traits, aside from the obvious relish of those national tours, Monroe reveled in the political game that being President provided him. He worked with Congress, passing a sizable amount of legislation covering taxes and reduction of the national debt. He presided over the period of five states being admitted to the Union, second only to (of all Presidents) Benjamin Harrison (Washington doesn't count because the thirteen original states were already part of the United States when he became President). Monroe did veto and oppose certain forward-looking bills such as the planned Cumberland Road funding based on his Republican-Democrat ideology of strict constitutionalism. Monroe had a hand - mostly behind-the-scenes - resolving the Missouri Compromise allowing Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state (alongside Maine, which began the practice of balancing the addition of a slave state with a free state) and banning slavery in any future states and territories north of Missouri's southern border.
The biggest reason common historical remembrance of Monroe is forgotten today is that Monroe ruled during a literal "Era of Good Feelings." The War of 1812 had burned away the passions for war that troubled the previous administrations. It helped that the chaos of France's revolution and empire had ended, quieting down most foreign policy concerns. Political partisan sniping faded into non-existence: the Federalist Party, broken by the national perception of them failing the nation during a time of war, died as a national power. Monroe pursued an inclusive administration above all other accomplishments. Monroe himself invited little controversy or scandal. Monroe became the second man to run unopposed for the Presidency since Washington: only a vote for John Quincy Adams by a rogue Elector prevented Monroe from becoming the second man other than Washington to unanimously win all Electoral College votes. It's ironic that such success makes a man forgettable: but history is more intriguing with intrigue; interest in history more focused on war and divided debate.
If there was any failing to Monroe's actions as President, it was that he failed to see the consequences of his primary goal of ending partisan strife (as noted, A-P Presidents never plan for the consequences of their acts). He may have created an Era of Good Feelings through efforts to incorporate Federalists into government and Federalist policy into his administration, and he may have tempered the back-room struggles of his fellow Democrats over who would lead the party... but he basically put a lid on a lit powder-keg by doing so. By leading with Federalist (pro-Union) ideology on a lot of issues, he angered up the Republican-Democratic states-rights' (which by this time devolved into Southern State dominance) believers. By refusing to choose a successor among the obvious candidates such as Henry Clay, William Crawford, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, or even John C. Calhoun (that bastard), Monroe created the environment for his own party to shatter into factions and re-ignite partisan divisions... only this time along more geographic lines and with more rancor than before.
A possible failing for Monroe would be the Missouri Compromise. Yes, it was a compromise over a contentious issue - the addition of a slave state further north than had been previously allowed, and in the Louisiana Territory where northerners hoped to apply the anti-slavery clauses of the Northwest Ordinance - but like all A-P actions it had consequences. It created the "You Shall Not Pass" line for slaveowners blocking them from northerner territories but allowed them to expand to the south of that line: That encouraged the strain of Manifest Destiny that drove the United States to aggressively pursue territorial acquisition into the Texas and California regions then held by the newly forged Republic of Mexico.
Another failing - more debated (not debatable, I mean it's more talked about, actually more shouted about) - was with the Monroe Doctrine: for all its political virtue, it also engendered a vice (again, something Monroe never saw coming). Future American governments interpreted the Doctrine to allow ourselves the power to meddle in the affairs of Central and South American governments. After all, it never limited what the U.S. could do in our own "back yard" (and it implied that the U.S. would intermediate for foreign powers under the right circumstance). For all the good things the Monroe Doctrine created (the gradual end of empire), it also created distrust among Latin American nations due to incursions ("filibusters") and attempted takeovers by American citizens looking to colonize for themselves. The Doctrine also bred the fervor for Manifest Destiny - combined with the long-term failure of the Missouri Compromise - that led to conflict with Mexico. The neoconservatives running around today crying all for military intervention everywhere - without thought of consequence and the destructiveness of war - get some of their "seeding democracy" argument from what the Monroe Doctrine sought to protect. And nowadays, just try talking about the CIA anywhere south of the Rio Grande and see if you can avoid getting punched in the face.
There's a lot about our nation today that formed from the actions of President Monroe: it's a little disappointing how our history books don't do a better job examining Monroe's administration and its effects on the rest of 19th Century and current American history.
Some print references to follow:
Whitney, David and Whitney, Robin, American Presidents 8th Ed., Readers Digest: Pleasantville NY, 1993, p. 47 - 54
Weinberg, Neil, "Waiting in Line at Mount Rushmore: Understanding the Rankings of Presidential Greatness" (2012). Senior Honors Theses. Paper 292. p. 32 - 34
If you have access to JSTOR, see if Murray, Robert and Blessing, Tim, "The Presidential Performance Study: a Progress Report, " Journal of American History, v.70 n. 3 (Dec. 1983) p. 535-55 has anything on character.
Please comment with more research suggestions on Monroe or on Presidential Character as defined by Barber. As I noted at the beginning, we're getting into uncharted waters here with the 19th Century Presidents...
What Is Needed To Fix Florida's (and the Nation's) Voting Woes
To contact us Click HERE
The finger-pointing and arguing over the debacle that was the 2012 elections process - hundreds of thousands discouraged from voting due to long lines, those long lines due to ballots being 4-12 pages long (!) - has begun in earnest, but instead of finger-pointing we need to - as a state and as a nation - make these very important reforms to ease voter access and improve voter rights.
1) We need to get ALL eligible people who can vote registered to vote.
2) We need to make it easier for people to vote, period. That means giving them the ability to vote wherever they can on election day or during pre-election early voting days. People get confused by being required to vote by precinct or specific location which sometimes are miles away while a perfectly good precinct is right down the block, and some people have moved since their last registered address and trying to vote from a new address. Same-Day voter registration updating the voter's proper address to allow them to vote right away. Creating a uniform balloting system that identifies the voter's district needs and prints (or electronically displays) the proper ballot - something elections offices here in Florida can do during Early Voting polling - can reduce the need to vote at a specific (and oft-times overwhelmed) precinct: just think of all those voting lines in Dade County that could have been eased by sending voters to nearby polling places that weren't overwhelmed.
3) We need to drop the ban on ex-felons denied the right to vote, and forcing them to re-register to get their right to vote restored. This should be an automatic thing: they've legally paid their debt to society, once out of prison the ex-felon should have the right to act like a citizen again as part of their probationary/ rehabilitative process. Having the ex-felons jump through years' worth of bureaucratic hoops is insulting.
4) We need to drop gerrymandering. Gerrymandering literally wastes people's votes.
5) A Photo ID for voting actually does make sense, alongside the signature requirement when showing up to vote. But the states need to issue such photo IDs at no cost: voting needs to be free in every way possible.
6) We need to have more Early Voting days, not fewer.
7) We need to move Election Day from a Tuesday - the middle of a workweek - to a weekend day like Friday or Saturday or Sunday. AND make the Election Day a national holiday. Back in the old days when voting was done at the county seat and people had to travel by horse or foot, it may have made sense to have elections on a workday when people would be at the county seat on other business. But not anymore. We need to make sure people can get to vote, and making the Big Election a banking/school holiday nearest to the weekend frees up a ton of people to give them all day to get out the vote.
8) We need to include a None Of The Above option for every candidate. It will get messy but if all candidates for an elected office are just disgusting human beings, the voters should have the right to say No to the offal the parties are shoving at them. It should make the parties' more responsive (maybe).
Any other suggestions?
1) We need to get ALL eligible people who can vote registered to vote.
2) We need to make it easier for people to vote, period. That means giving them the ability to vote wherever they can on election day or during pre-election early voting days. People get confused by being required to vote by precinct or specific location which sometimes are miles away while a perfectly good precinct is right down the block, and some people have moved since their last registered address and trying to vote from a new address. Same-Day voter registration updating the voter's proper address to allow them to vote right away. Creating a uniform balloting system that identifies the voter's district needs and prints (or electronically displays) the proper ballot - something elections offices here in Florida can do during Early Voting polling - can reduce the need to vote at a specific (and oft-times overwhelmed) precinct: just think of all those voting lines in Dade County that could have been eased by sending voters to nearby polling places that weren't overwhelmed.
3) We need to drop the ban on ex-felons denied the right to vote, and forcing them to re-register to get their right to vote restored. This should be an automatic thing: they've legally paid their debt to society, once out of prison the ex-felon should have the right to act like a citizen again as part of their probationary/ rehabilitative process. Having the ex-felons jump through years' worth of bureaucratic hoops is insulting.
4) We need to drop gerrymandering. Gerrymandering literally wastes people's votes.
5) A Photo ID for voting actually does make sense, alongside the signature requirement when showing up to vote. But the states need to issue such photo IDs at no cost: voting needs to be free in every way possible.
6) We need to have more Early Voting days, not fewer.
7) We need to move Election Day from a Tuesday - the middle of a workweek - to a weekend day like Friday or Saturday or Sunday. AND make the Election Day a national holiday. Back in the old days when voting was done at the county seat and people had to travel by horse or foot, it may have made sense to have elections on a workday when people would be at the county seat on other business. But not anymore. We need to make sure people can get to vote, and making the Big Election a banking/school holiday nearest to the weekend frees up a ton of people to give them all day to get out the vote.
8) We need to include a None Of The Above option for every candidate. It will get messy but if all candidates for an elected office are just disgusting human beings, the voters should have the right to say No to the offal the parties are shoving at them. It should make the parties' more responsive (maybe).
Any other suggestions?
The Difference Between a Recession and a Depression
To contact us Click HERE
The truism is that when your neighbors lose their jobs, it's a recession: when YOU lose your job, it's a depression.
The last 5 years, however, has kind of skewed that joke. Which really isn't all that funny when you consider the hell you and your neighbors are going through trying to find solid work.
The normal turn-around on losing a job and finding a new one tended to be less than six months (if you couldn't find anything in six months you were looking in the wrong places). This prolonged economic downturn, however, saw a turn-around rate averaging a year, maybe more. I personally knew of fellow unemployed who were struggling to find even part-time employ (no benefits, not enough income) for more than a year.
I personally struggled to find full-time employment for more than 4 years. Part-time work came and went and was hard to find (and keep): for all of 2011 I had no employment at all. And I was putting in for five to ten jobs a week. The simple reason was that there were few jobs being created in the first place... with each new opening getting swarmed with 60 to 150 applicants within two days of the posting. I once handed my resume to an HR person speaking at the Career Center for a position that my research background fit to a tee that the HR person mentioned just opened the day before... only to have her tell me she'd already gotten 75 applicants for that spot.
So, from where I was sitting - where my family was coping along with me, doing what they could to help out, and all the burdens they've had to bear - this Great Recession felt like a Depression.
This is a very long-winded setup for the good news. I finally found a full-time job. They really liked my resume: they really liked me. I'll be doing what I like: helping people find books and research materials and getting into computer usage.
I would joke - and I have, elsewhere - that our long national nightmare... is over. Except, well, it's not over.
We're still a nation mired in a jobless economic recovery. Unemployment may be hovering around 7.9 percent (official number: the unofficial unemployment numbers are always a lot worse... and always more accurate) which is better than the 10 percent and worse that it had been at the deepest part of the 2009 valley, but that's not normal. Unemployment should ever be around 4 percent for the economy to be chugging along just fine: an unemployment rate of 2 percent is a strong economy.
We need more action from government to spur businesses to use their profits to grow and hire on more people. We need to stop the wave of cutbacks in the public sector which is hurting that job sector: if our states, counties, and federal government weren't cutting back on their workforce, the unemployment rate would be a full percent less than it is now. We need a jobs bill.
Meantime, to all my fellow job-seekers. I may be employed but I stand with you. Good luck finding work. Really good luck to you all.
The last 5 years, however, has kind of skewed that joke. Which really isn't all that funny when you consider the hell you and your neighbors are going through trying to find solid work.
The normal turn-around on losing a job and finding a new one tended to be less than six months (if you couldn't find anything in six months you were looking in the wrong places). This prolonged economic downturn, however, saw a turn-around rate averaging a year, maybe more. I personally knew of fellow unemployed who were struggling to find even part-time employ (no benefits, not enough income) for more than a year.
I personally struggled to find full-time employment for more than 4 years. Part-time work came and went and was hard to find (and keep): for all of 2011 I had no employment at all. And I was putting in for five to ten jobs a week. The simple reason was that there were few jobs being created in the first place... with each new opening getting swarmed with 60 to 150 applicants within two days of the posting. I once handed my resume to an HR person speaking at the Career Center for a position that my research background fit to a tee that the HR person mentioned just opened the day before... only to have her tell me she'd already gotten 75 applicants for that spot.
So, from where I was sitting - where my family was coping along with me, doing what they could to help out, and all the burdens they've had to bear - this Great Recession felt like a Depression.
This is a very long-winded setup for the good news. I finally found a full-time job. They really liked my resume: they really liked me. I'll be doing what I like: helping people find books and research materials and getting into computer usage.
I would joke - and I have, elsewhere - that our long national nightmare... is over. Except, well, it's not over.
We're still a nation mired in a jobless economic recovery. Unemployment may be hovering around 7.9 percent (official number: the unofficial unemployment numbers are always a lot worse... and always more accurate) which is better than the 10 percent and worse that it had been at the deepest part of the 2009 valley, but that's not normal. Unemployment should ever be around 4 percent for the economy to be chugging along just fine: an unemployment rate of 2 percent is a strong economy.
We need more action from government to spur businesses to use their profits to grow and hire on more people. We need to stop the wave of cutbacks in the public sector which is hurting that job sector: if our states, counties, and federal government weren't cutting back on their workforce, the unemployment rate would be a full percent less than it is now. We need a jobs bill.
Meantime, to all my fellow job-seekers. I may be employed but I stand with you. Good luck finding work. Really good luck to you all.
Presidential Character: Week Six, The Gathering Storm
To contact us Click HERE
I'm a little swamped this week, so if we're looking at President Numero Six-o, that would be John Quincy Adams and... okay, let's just label him Active-Negative and such. Gotta keep packing! Gotta get movin' on!
...
(gets gang-pressed back into service) Damn it all! Fine... I'll give you more info...
The Election of 1824 remains THE original controversial Presidential election (the elections of 1876 and 2000 may be more controversial, but 1824 is definitely in the Top Five). Unlike 1800, where the controversy was over Jefferson or Burr being the true choice on a party ticket, 1824 was the first time the Electoral system worked the way the Founders intended. A divided result between a multitude of candidates each of them with enough Electoral votes to prevent one from winning it all.
Why is this a bad thing? Because the Founders wanted the choice for President to be decided by the House of Representatives, not the voting public: they wanted results that would not leave a clear Electoral winner and leave the choice of the Executive to Congress. The Founders felt it was a check and balance by having the President owe his office to Congress' largess. They also figured the House would be smart enough to choose the winner based on the guy who got the most votes anyway: they just wanted Congress to have a final say, a seal of approval as it were.
What the Founders failed to realize was that the partisan nature of the House by this time would create factions favoring one side or fearing another. And it didn't help that one of the FOUR candidates for President from the SAME PARTY - this was before primaries took over caucuses as the means of winnowing down party choices to one clear candidate - was an ambitious mofo by the name of Henry Clay.
The results were that Andrew Jackson won 11 states, 99 Electoral, and 41 percent of the popular vote. John Q. won 7 states, 84 Electoral, and 30 percent. William Crawford of Georgia - once viewed as Monroe's most able successor, but suffering from failing health hurting his support - was third with only 2 states, 41 Electoral and 11 percent. Clay was fourth with 3 states, 37 Electoral and 13 percent (the Electoral is the count that matters at this point). Clay was clearly out of the running, but he had enough pull in the House to switch his supporters over to the candidate he preferred: John Quincy Adams. Clay agreed with Adams on most arguments, and felt his viewpoint and power base would nurture and grow under an Adams' tenure.
Problem was, Andrew Jackson had more public support, and more states. Adams came into office under the worst of circumstances: a minority President (not an ethnic minority, but a minority in terms of voter numbers, think Benjamin Harrison, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush) with only 30 percent of the nation as his voter base. And with an angry, vindictive sonofabitch like Jackson screaming on the sidelines about a "Corrupt Bargain". It didn't help that Clay accepted Adams' offer to be Secretary of State, which at the time was the stepping stone to becoming President.
Why did Adams Junior (son of John Adams, making him the first President to follow in a relative's footsteps) even consider offering Clay a prominent Cabinet seat, knowing full well Jackson was out there ready to pounce on anything that reeked of a deal (there has never been any physical or eyewitness evidence that Clay and Adams bargained for the results)? As smart as Adams was - he read, spoke four languages (at least), and was one of the brightest foreign policy minds of the era - he had to know giving Clay any sign of a prize would rile up Jackson's side of the aisle. But he still offered (that Clay accepted is moot to the argument: this is Clay we're talking about, and Clay was an ambitious man).
This is the only solid evidence of John Quincy (should I go with John Q. or John Quincy? Typing out his full name is gonna be overlong) being a Compulsive character, the key trait of an Active-Negative. A better word would be Uncompromising. He probably felt Clay was the best choice for State and that was that, and to hell with Jackson's ire.
There is little else to report about John Q.'s administration. He openly noted he was serving at the displeasure of the majority of citizens (and Congress) and did what he could to work with Congress to pass ambitious public projects such as a national university and more public roads and canals. Some of the canal projects were passed but nearly everything else John Q. attempted to get through Congress failed. The congressional blocking crimped his foreign policy endeavors as well. In the face of growing settler unrest in the Mississippi areas against native tribes already living there, Adams did what he could to enforce existing treaties to protect those tribes, which upset the expansionist factions in the Democratic-Republican party (i.e. Andrew Jackson).
But there was little else John Q. could do. Political opposition in Congress was fierce, and Jackson essentially became the first man to begin running for the Presidency a full FOUR YEARS before the next election. The uncompromising nature of Congress can have an outside effect on the President's actions: much of the Negative (or limited enforcement of powers) of John Q.'s administration was external rather than internal. This kind of makes it hard to truly gauge John Quincy Adams for the character charts as an Active-Negative. I'm leaning that way because of how he handled the Electoral crisis and opening himself up to public ridicule by his enemies.
Next up: work! I'm off to work on Monday! Voot!
...
(gets gang-pressed back into service) Damn it all! Fine... I'll give you more info...
The Election of 1824 remains THE original controversial Presidential election (the elections of 1876 and 2000 may be more controversial, but 1824 is definitely in the Top Five). Unlike 1800, where the controversy was over Jefferson or Burr being the true choice on a party ticket, 1824 was the first time the Electoral system worked the way the Founders intended. A divided result between a multitude of candidates each of them with enough Electoral votes to prevent one from winning it all.
Why is this a bad thing? Because the Founders wanted the choice for President to be decided by the House of Representatives, not the voting public: they wanted results that would not leave a clear Electoral winner and leave the choice of the Executive to Congress. The Founders felt it was a check and balance by having the President owe his office to Congress' largess. They also figured the House would be smart enough to choose the winner based on the guy who got the most votes anyway: they just wanted Congress to have a final say, a seal of approval as it were.
What the Founders failed to realize was that the partisan nature of the House by this time would create factions favoring one side or fearing another. And it didn't help that one of the FOUR candidates for President from the SAME PARTY - this was before primaries took over caucuses as the means of winnowing down party choices to one clear candidate - was an ambitious mofo by the name of Henry Clay.
The results were that Andrew Jackson won 11 states, 99 Electoral, and 41 percent of the popular vote. John Q. won 7 states, 84 Electoral, and 30 percent. William Crawford of Georgia - once viewed as Monroe's most able successor, but suffering from failing health hurting his support - was third with only 2 states, 41 Electoral and 11 percent. Clay was fourth with 3 states, 37 Electoral and 13 percent (the Electoral is the count that matters at this point). Clay was clearly out of the running, but he had enough pull in the House to switch his supporters over to the candidate he preferred: John Quincy Adams. Clay agreed with Adams on most arguments, and felt his viewpoint and power base would nurture and grow under an Adams' tenure.
Problem was, Andrew Jackson had more public support, and more states. Adams came into office under the worst of circumstances: a minority President (not an ethnic minority, but a minority in terms of voter numbers, think Benjamin Harrison, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush) with only 30 percent of the nation as his voter base. And with an angry, vindictive sonofabitch like Jackson screaming on the sidelines about a "Corrupt Bargain". It didn't help that Clay accepted Adams' offer to be Secretary of State, which at the time was the stepping stone to becoming President.
Why did Adams Junior (son of John Adams, making him the first President to follow in a relative's footsteps) even consider offering Clay a prominent Cabinet seat, knowing full well Jackson was out there ready to pounce on anything that reeked of a deal (there has never been any physical or eyewitness evidence that Clay and Adams bargained for the results)? As smart as Adams was - he read, spoke four languages (at least), and was one of the brightest foreign policy minds of the era - he had to know giving Clay any sign of a prize would rile up Jackson's side of the aisle. But he still offered (that Clay accepted is moot to the argument: this is Clay we're talking about, and Clay was an ambitious man).
This is the only solid evidence of John Quincy (should I go with John Q. or John Quincy? Typing out his full name is gonna be overlong) being a Compulsive character, the key trait of an Active-Negative. A better word would be Uncompromising. He probably felt Clay was the best choice for State and that was that, and to hell with Jackson's ire.
There is little else to report about John Q.'s administration. He openly noted he was serving at the displeasure of the majority of citizens (and Congress) and did what he could to work with Congress to pass ambitious public projects such as a national university and more public roads and canals. Some of the canal projects were passed but nearly everything else John Q. attempted to get through Congress failed. The congressional blocking crimped his foreign policy endeavors as well. In the face of growing settler unrest in the Mississippi areas against native tribes already living there, Adams did what he could to enforce existing treaties to protect those tribes, which upset the expansionist factions in the Democratic-Republican party (i.e. Andrew Jackson).
But there was little else John Q. could do. Political opposition in Congress was fierce, and Jackson essentially became the first man to begin running for the Presidency a full FOUR YEARS before the next election. The uncompromising nature of Congress can have an outside effect on the President's actions: much of the Negative (or limited enforcement of powers) of John Q.'s administration was external rather than internal. This kind of makes it hard to truly gauge John Quincy Adams for the character charts as an Active-Negative. I'm leaning that way because of how he handled the Electoral crisis and opening himself up to public ridicule by his enemies.
Next up: work! I'm off to work on Monday! Voot!
7 Şubat 2013 Perşembe
Church Potluck Recipe: Chili
To contact us Click HERE
At home we LOVE chili on a cold winter day and it is great at Church Potluck. You can fix it to warm everyone up and to share with the congregation along with some hot buttered corn bread (Jiffy corn muffin mix).
Chili
*I make this the day before and in the morning I warm it up in the microwave and put it in my crock pot on LOW to keep it warm. I take the crock pot with us and plug it in my CCD classroom and go to Mass. After CCD I just take it down to the Fellowship Hall and plug it in there. I warm the cornbread up in a microwave and place it on the table next to the crock pot.
You’ll Need:
1 Carroll Shelby’s Chili Kit
2 pounds ground beef (I use 1 pound of ground beef and 1 pound of Jimmy Dean HOT roll sausage)
1 8 oz. can tomato sauce
2 8 oz. cans water
*I double this recipe below to make a lot.
Cooking Instructions:
Brown 2 pounds ground beef in large pot. Drain fat. Add tomato sauce, water, spice packet and salt packet (optional). To Fix It Mild, omit cayenne pepper. To Fix It Hot, stir in entire cayenne pepper packet (I fix it HOT). Stir. Cover and simmer for 15 minutes. For thicker chili, mix masa flour packet with 1/3 cup water. Stir in and let simmer for 5 minutes.
Prep Time: 5 minutes
Cook Time: 30 minutes
Makes: Six 8 oz servings.
Create Your Own
Create your own chili by adding any one or more of the following suggestions:
• Chopped onion or green peppers when browning ground beef.
• Omit 1 of the 8 oz. cans of water and add one 14 oz. can of diced tomatoes.
• 15 oz can of kidney or pinto beans during the last 5 minutes of cooking (I add 2 cans).
• Top off your creation with shredded cheese, sour cream or diced tomatoes.
• Serve chili on top of some white rice.
At home we LOVE chili on a cold winter day and it is great at Church Potluck. You can fix it to warm everyone up and to share with the congregation along with some hot buttered corn bread (Jiffy corn muffin mix).
Chili
*I make this the day before and in the morning I warm it up in the microwave and put it in my crock pot on LOW to keep it warm. I take the crock pot with us and plug it in my CCD classroom and go to Mass. After CCD I just take it down to the Fellowship Hall and plug it in there. I warm the cornbread up in a microwave and place it on the table next to the crock pot.
You’ll Need:
1 Carroll Shelby’s Chili Kit
2 pounds ground beef (I use 1 pound of ground beef and 1 pound of Jimmy Dean HOT roll sausage)
1 8 oz. can tomato sauce
2 8 oz. cans water
*I double this recipe below to make a lot.
Cooking Instructions:
Brown 2 pounds ground beef in large pot. Drain fat. Add tomato sauce, water, spice packet and salt packet (optional). To Fix It Mild, omit cayenne pepper. To Fix It Hot, stir in entire cayenne pepper packet (I fix it HOT). Stir. Cover and simmer for 15 minutes. For thicker chili, mix masa flour packet with 1/3 cup water. Stir in and let simmer for 5 minutes.
Prep Time: 5 minutes
Cook Time: 30 minutes
Makes: Six 8 oz servings.
Create Your Own
Create your own chili by adding any one or more of the following suggestions:
• Chopped onion or green peppers when browning ground beef.
• Omit 1 of the 8 oz. cans of water and add one 14 oz. can of diced tomatoes.
• 15 oz can of kidney or pinto beans during the last 5 minutes of cooking (I add 2 cans).
• Top off your creation with shredded cheese, sour cream or diced tomatoes.
• Serve chili on top of some white rice.
Gospel for the Mass: 2/3/13- Luke 4:21-30
To contact us Click HERE
*Be sure to check out Gospel for the Mass Year C page right below the header for other days that you need Gospel for the Mass activities.
Disclaimer: The posts below contain links to other websites and the content of these sites are evaluated before they are included. These websites can change without warning making links inactive and/or the content altered. We have no control over other websites and we are not responsible for the content that they post.
Luke 4:21-30
Activities
catholicmom.com- Click on the month. Scroll down to the date for Coloring Page, Mass Worksheet, Crossword Puzzle, Word Search, etc.
Theresa at catholickidsbulletin.blogspot.com will post a link to an activity sheet that coordinates with the Catholic Mass. There will be pictures and activities each week to help little kids understand and appreciate the Mass. Most weeks, she will also highlight a Saint whose feast day falls within that week or a liturgical symbol they can watch for at Mass.
silk.net/RelEd/- Resources on the Sunday Readings
sadlierreligion.com- Scroll down to Gospel Reflection, Discussion Questions for the Gospel, and Proclaiming Faith Activities
loyolapress.com- Background on the Gospel and activities for groups and families
sermons4kids.com- Hometown Boy Makes Good object lesson with coloring page
sermons4kids.com-Only a Carpenter’s Son object lesson with group activities, coloring page, puzzles, worship bulletin
sundayschoollessons.com- Jesus Makes Enemies in his Home Town lesson
word-sunday.com- Questions About Jackie and Charlie (scroll down to Gospel)
textweek.com- Lectionary, Scripture Study and Worship Links and Resources
Coloring
sermons4kids.com- Jesus Teaching
sermons4kids.com- Luke 4:24
Crafts
sermons4kids.com- Only a Carpenter’s Son group activities (crafts)
Games
sermons4kids.com- Only a Carpenter’s Son group activities (games)
Drive Out Elisha
Introduce game- What happened to Elisha after he only cured Naaman the Syrian captain of leprosy? When the people in the synagogue heard this, they were all filled with fury. They rose up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town had been built, to hurl him down headlong.
Need- One empty 2-liter bottle, paper, crayons, tape, balled up paper
Directions- Have students draw and color Elisha, then cut him out so you can tape him on an empty 2-liter bottle. Remind the students that Elisha was driven out of town by the people in the synagogue. Tell the class "In Jesus' day, when people were caught committing certain crimes, the punishment may have been to get "stoned to death" by the people living in the village. Tell the students that we will recreate using our Elisha what it was like being driven out of town during Jesus’ time. Line up the students in one line and standing behind a chair. Tape each child’s Elisha on the 2-liter bottle when it is their turn. Have them throw their balled up paper at Elisha.
Puzzles
sermons4kids.com- Word Search
joanyedwards.com- Word Search
sermons4kids.com- Crossword
joanyedwards.com- Crossword
*Be sure to check out Gospel for the Mass Year C page right below the header for other days that you need Gospel for the Mass activities.
Disclaimer: The posts below contain links to other websites and the content of these sites are evaluated before they are included. These websites can change without warning making links inactive and/or the content altered. We have no control over other websites and we are not responsible for the content that they post.
Luke 4:21-30
Activities
catholicmom.com- Click on the month. Scroll down to the date for Coloring Page, Mass Worksheet, Crossword Puzzle, Word Search, etc.
Theresa at catholickidsbulletin.blogspot.com will post a link to an activity sheet that coordinates with the Catholic Mass. There will be pictures and activities each week to help little kids understand and appreciate the Mass. Most weeks, she will also highlight a Saint whose feast day falls within that week or a liturgical symbol they can watch for at Mass.
silk.net/RelEd/- Resources on the Sunday Readings
sadlierreligion.com- Scroll down to Gospel Reflection, Discussion Questions for the Gospel, and Proclaiming Faith Activities
loyolapress.com- Background on the Gospel and activities for groups and families
sermons4kids.com- Hometown Boy Makes Good object lesson with coloring page
sermons4kids.com-Only a Carpenter’s Son object lesson with group activities, coloring page, puzzles, worship bulletin
sundayschoollessons.com- Jesus Makes Enemies in his Home Town lesson
word-sunday.com- Questions About Jackie and Charlie (scroll down to Gospel)
textweek.com- Lectionary, Scripture Study and Worship Links and Resources
Coloring
sermons4kids.com- Jesus Teaching
sermons4kids.com- Luke 4:24
Crafts
sermons4kids.com- Only a Carpenter’s Son group activities (crafts)
Games
sermons4kids.com- Only a Carpenter’s Son group activities (games)
Drive Out Elisha
Introduce game- What happened to Elisha after he only cured Naaman the Syrian captain of leprosy? When the people in the synagogue heard this, they were all filled with fury. They rose up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town had been built, to hurl him down headlong.
Need- One empty 2-liter bottle, paper, crayons, tape, balled up paper
Directions- Have students draw and color Elisha, then cut him out so you can tape him on an empty 2-liter bottle. Remind the students that Elisha was driven out of town by the people in the synagogue. Tell the class "In Jesus' day, when people were caught committing certain crimes, the punishment may have been to get "stoned to death" by the people living in the village. Tell the students that we will recreate using our Elisha what it was like being driven out of town during Jesus’ time. Line up the students in one line and standing behind a chair. Tape each child’s Elisha on the 2-liter bottle when it is their turn. Have them throw their balled up paper at Elisha.
Puzzles
sermons4kids.com- Word Search
joanyedwards.com- Word Search
sermons4kids.com- Crossword
joanyedwards.com- Crossword
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)