The Second Eclectic

Technology changes how we relate to God and each other

President Hoped for Quick, Violent War

Washington D.C., July 1800

New documents recently declassified by Government authorities per the new Freedom of Information Act reveal that President Adams, prior to his election to the Executive Branch, made remarks which some are calling inflammatory, charging that the President incited more fatalites among colonial troops than may have been necessary.

Of myriad new documents (12 or 13), letters between the President and now First Lady, Abigail, were released to the Press, in which Adams wrote, "My Toast is a short and violent War." Heretofore, the public had cared less about the President's views on war from 23 years earlier--happily content with their relatively recent freedom from the Crown and equating Ignorance with Bliss--and under the current circumstances, no average Jedidiah Musket-Wielder has yet seen these documents.

Still, the Free Press, citing extended Liberties granted by the Constitution, demanded that these documents be released to "the publick." Until independence from Britain, the Press had been facing overwhelming censorship from the Crown, some dissenting papers even being shut down. The White House, at the mercy of the Free Press' lust for seditious faux news and influence over the minds of unthinking citizens, grudgingly acquiesced to their child-like cries of entitlement.

These latest documents, authenticated by CBS, call into question the President’s credibility as a politician and his views as a Patriot. "Violence is not something I want this country or our President to stand for," said one personal friend of this columnist, and an ardent supporter of peace extremist group, "Peace, even at the cost of Personal Freedom" or PEATCOPF.

These documents could not have come at a worse time for the President, who is currently in a heated campaign against his Vice-President, Thomas Jefferson, owner and proprietor of this news outlet. The current campaign, heated as it is, has distracted all sides from the actual work of governing for some time and does not bode well for the future of this fledgling Republic.

Politicians Unite Against Suggestions of Hypocrisy

In efforts to thwart this possible death knell to his bid at a second term, the President, in a statement released by the White House, said his “private views on the pace and nature of the Revolution do not in any way influence his publick policies on war in general.” As well, the President noted that “there will not be another major conflict for at least eleven years.”

Some may be tempted to construe the President’s private/publick split as the definition of a “hypocrite,” but neither President Adams--a Federalist--nor his opponents see it that way. Vice-President Thomas Jefferson--a Republican--said in a statement, “While I am sorry to be made aware of such wrongheaded opinions, unbefitting the character I would portray as President, the Republicans are glad to hear that the President does not allow his personal views, convictions which guided his leadership in matters of the Declaration, to inform his leadership. We believe that this dis-integrated approach will lead, as I have written elsewhere, 'to a more perfect Union.'"

Asked for his private opinion, Jefferson scoffed, "Personal views are just that, and as they are disintegrated from my carefully crafted publick image, I see it unnecessary to share them with the publick and with the Press."

But even the bipartisan agreement regarding disintegrating leadership doesn’t quell the concerns of Lucy Putnam, whose husband was killed in the American Revolution. “I just can’t help but wonder whether Manasseh, God rest'im, might still be alive today had the President, then, been of a different mind.” This is exactly the kind of “What if” thinking that the Press seeks to instill in the Publick subconcious, offering alternative scenarios that provide no solutions to anyone but make everyone thoroughly dissatisfied with the way things are.

Had the President been of a different mind in 1777 (when he penned those rabble-rousing words), perhaps fewer of the 4,435 men (2 percent of the 2.15 million colonists) would have perished for the cause of Liberty. Could deaths have been prevented in our aspirations for, among other things, a Free Press? It’s a question left for the ages.

Better of British?

“Should we have fought at all?” A small but vocal minority (Leaders for an Interdependent British State, or LIBS) is asking that very question. In their view, “better a draconian King than a malevolent President.” In other words, better an oppressive dictator than a warring Leader of a Free Country.

While some are calling for President Adams’ resignation, many believe that the long and violent Revolution was worth the sacrifice. Nearly twenty-five years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, a recent Bias.org poll reveals that most U.S. citizens appreciate and value their freedom. The Free Press is happy too, having the same hard-fought and costly freedom that allows them to call attention to a divisive and sensationalized issue that sells papers and makes gobs of Washingtons.

Section D: Gossip
Newly Released Documents Reveal President’s Lurid Prose to First Lady

Section D: Gossip will hereafter be referenced under the euphemism Entertainment