{"id":5431,"date":"2020-04-24T12:03:06","date_gmt":"2020-04-24T12:03:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/?p=5431"},"modified":"2020-03-22T10:21:44","modified_gmt":"2020-03-22T10:21:44","slug":"another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\/","title":{"rendered":"ANOTHER COFFEE BREAK: OUR FOREFATHERS\u2019 COVENANTS, Part 20"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/span><\/div><\/div>
<\/div>\n\n
\n\n

<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

OUR FOREFATHERS\u2019\nCOVENANTS<\/o:p><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n

Part 20<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n\n

\u00a0<\/o:p><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n

April 24, 2020<\/o:p><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n

\u00a0<\/o:p><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n

We started talking\nabout Daniel Webster yesterday, and I was concerned that the discussion would\ntake up a whole lot more time than I wanted to spend for the day so we'll\nfinish up talking about him today.<\/o:p><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n

We finished the day\nwith a portion of his December 1820 speech to the Massachusetts Constitutional\nConvention; and in a minute, we'll go back to it for some more.<\/o:p><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n

There were a couple of\nrather significant highlights of his career that I missed yesterday.\u00a0 It's\nimpossible to talk about Daniel Webster without discussing these items since\nthey laid some important constitutional foundations in our nation's history.<\/span><\/b><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

The year\nwas 1807.\u00a0 Thomas Jefferson was President of the United States.\u00a0\nDespite the fact that Jefferson had been an avowed Federalist, he was taking\nsome actions that were decidedly non-Federalist -- most notably the issuing of\nthe Embargo Act of 1807.\u00a0 It seems that England, in its efforts to deal\nwith the Napoleonic Wars, was in dire need of more soldiers to fight its wars\nwith France.\u00a0 George III was King of England, and he chose to vent his\ndispleasure against America's recent independence by seizing American shipping\nand conscripting sailors and merchants of British birth into his armies.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

These\nseizures and conscriptions were non-declared acts of war against his former\ncolonies.\u00a0 Rather than call for Congress to declare war against England,\nJefferson thought he could discourage this English piracy with a trade embargo\nagainst all English goods and the imposition of extreme tariffs.\u00a0 He told\nCongress that this \"peaceful coercion\" would stem British and French\naggression.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

Many New\nEnglanders, including those of Daniel Webster's home of Portsmouth were reliant\non trade with England for their livelihoods and were subsequently thrown into\neconomic hardship.\u00a0 Being much more negatively impacted by Jefferson's\npolicies than British imperial and commercial interference, New England\nshippers vehemently protested against the Embargo; and in 1808 Webster penned\nan anonymous pamphlet attacking it.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

Nevertheless,\nthe succeeding years saw a continuation of those violations of America's\nneutral rights, and as one commentator put it, \"the rest of the nation\neagerly turned Jefferson's \"peaceful coercion\" into Madison's War of\n1812.\"\u00a0 It was one of the factors that led Webster to reconsider his\nassociation with the Federalists.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

As the War\nof 1812 unfolded, he was asked to give an address to the Washington Benevolent\nSociety.\u00a0 His speech decried the war and the violation of New England's\nshipping rights that preceded it.\u00a0 Widely disseminated throughout\nWashington society and New England, that speech led to Webster's selection to\nthe Rockingham Convention in Rockingham, New Hampshire which sought to formally\nenunciate and declare New England's grievances with President Madison.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

While\ncapturing much of the same tone of his speech to the Washington Benevolent\nSociety, it (uncharacteristically of Webster's normal speech and mannerism)\ncontained a threat of secession, \"If a\nseparation of the states shall ever take place, it will be, on some occasion,\nwhen one portion of the country undertakes to control, to regulate, and to\nsacrifice the interest of another.\"<\/span><\/b><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

That\nstatement became part and parcel of the New Republican Party's (the Whig Party)\nstance against Federalism as it argued for a more republican form of government\nand states' rights.\u00a0 The concept that a Federal government could impose\nits will in controlling and regulating the interests of one part of the nation\nat the sacrifice of another became anathema within republicanism.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

That said,\nit takes no great genius or rocket science to figure out that the republicanism\nof Daniel Webster's day scarcely represents the convictions of many today who\ncall themselves \"Republicans.\"<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

It was\nonly a few years later that Webster signaled his support for Henry Clay's\n\"American System\" -- an economic policy based on Alexander Hamilton's\ncapitalistic principles.\u00a0 It contained three core policies: (1)<\/span>protection of industry through selective high\ntariffs, along with some subsidies; (2)<\/span>government\ninvestment in basic infrastructure creating internal improvements (particularly\nin transportation); and (3) a national bank with policies that promote the growth\nof productive enterprises.\u00a0 The \"American System\" differs from\nthe concept of \"Free Trade\" and a \"Free Market System\" in\nthat it provided for tariffs and subsidies, whereas \"Free Trade\" and\n\"Free Markets\" impose no tariffs and provide no subsidies.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

To the\nabsolute astonishment of his American System colleagues, most notably Henry\nClay and John C. Calhoun (<\/span>**<\/span><\/b>who\nwas then Vice-President of the United States), Webster took what they thought\nwas an uncharacteristic stance in opposition to the tariffs and\nsubsidies.\u00a0 Clay and Calhoun were trying to protect what they saw as the\nmanufacturing interests of this nation.\u00a0 Webster, seeing the practical\n(and negative) impact in his home region of New England stood up in the House\nof Representatives to argue that, \"the\ntariff's great object was to raise revenue, not to foster manufacture,\" as\nwell as it being against \"the true spirit of the Constitution\" giving\n\"excessive bounties or encouragements to one [industry] over\nanother.\"<\/span><\/b><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

(**<\/b>I thought it might be of interest for\nyou to note that Della is directly related to John C. Calhoun, and the Calhoun\nfamily is a rather large part of her family heritage.\u00a0 We attended a\nfamily reunion a few years ago in which the Calhoun\nfamily figured prominently.\u00a0 They take pride in the fact that John C.\nCalhoun is among the family forbears.)<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

Yesterday,\nwe talked about the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, convened when the\nstate of Maine was separated from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the\ncontroversy that arose when some of the delegates sought to modify the wording\nin such a way \"that a profession of belief in the Christian religion no\nlonger be required as a qualification for office.\"<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

\u00a0Over\nthe years, Daniel Webster had given some notable and some phenomenal\nspeeches.\u00a0 He had never argued anything for the sake of political\nexpediency, and his convictions were certainly foremost in the ears of his\npeers as he delivered one of his most forceful arguments for retaining the\nnecessity of Christian faith as a requirement to hold office.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

We quoted\na portion of his speech yesterday.\u00a0 Here's more.
\n
\n<\/span>There are certain rights, no doubt, which\nthe whole people, or the government as representing the whole people, owe to\neach individual in return for that obedience and personal service, and those\nproportionate contributions to the public burdens which each individual owes to\nthe government. These rights are stated with sufficient accuracy, in the tenth\narticle of the Bill of Rights, in this constitution. \" Each individual in\nsociety has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life,\nliberty, and property, according to the standing laws.\" Here is no right\nof office enumerated; no right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the\nState. All bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people, they\nhave of course a right to regulate it by any rules which they may deem expedient.\nHence the people, by their constitution, prescribe certain qualifications for\noffice respecting age, property, residence, and taxation. But if office, merely\nas such, were a right which each individual under the social compact was\nentitled to claim, all these qualifications would be excluded. Acknowledged\nrights are not subject, and ought not to be subject to any such limitation. The\nright of being protected in life, liberty, and estate is due to all and cannot\nbe justly denied to any, whatever be their age, property, or residence in the\nState.
\n
\nThese qualifications, then, can only be made requisite as conditions for office\non the ground that office is not what any man can demand as matter of right but\nrests in the confidence and good-will of those who are to bestow it. In short,\nit seems to me too plain to be questioned that the right of office is a matter\nof discretion and option, and can never be claimed by any man on the ground of\nobligation. It would seem to follow, then, that those who confer office may\nannex any such conditions to it as they think proper. If they prefer one man to\nanother, they may act on that preference. If they regard certain personal\nqualifications, they may act accordingly, and ground of complaint is given to\nnobody. Between two candidates otherwise equally qualified, the people at an\nelection may decide in favor of one because he is a Christian and against the\nother because he is not. They may repeat this preference at the next election\non the same ground and may continue it from year to year.\"<\/o:p><\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n

\"Now, if the people may, without injustice, act upon this\npreference, and from a sole regard to this qualification, and refuse in any\ninstance to depart from it, they have an equally clear right to prescribe this\nqualification beforehand as a rule for their future government. If they may do\nit, they may agree to do it. If they deem it necessary, they may so say\nbeforehand. If the public will may require this qualification at every election\nas it occurs, the public will may declare itself beforehand and make such\nqualification a standing requisite. That cannot be an unjust rule, the\ncompliance with which, in every case, would be right. This qualification has\nnothing to do with any man's conscience. If he dislike the condition, he may decline\nthe office in like manner as if he dislike the salary, the rank, or any thing\nelse which the law attaches to it.
\n
\nBut however clear the right may be (and I can hardly suppose any gentleman will\ndispute it), the expediency of retaining the declaration is a more difficult\nquestion. It is said not to be necessary, because in this Commonwealth\nninety-nine out of every hundred of the inhabitants profess to believe in the\nChristian religion<\/u>. It is sufficiently certain, therefore, that persons of\nthis description, and none others, will ordinarily be chosen to places of\npublic trust. There is as much security, it is said, on this subject, as the\nnecessity of the case requires. And as there is a sort of opprobrium incident\nto this qualification - a marking out, for observation and censorious remark,\nof a single individual, or a very few individuals, who may not be able to make\nthe declaration - it is an act if not of injustice, yet of unkindness and of\nunnecessary rigor, to call on such individuals to make the declaration and to\nexclude them from office if they refuse to do so.
\n
\nThere is also another class of objections which have been stated. It has been\nsaid that there are many very devout and serious persons, persons who esteem\nthe Christian religion to be above all price, to whom, nevertheless, the terms\nof this declaration seem somewhat too strong and intense. They seem, to these\npersons, to require the declaration of that faith<\/i> which is deemed\nessential to personal salvation; and therefore not at all fit to be adopted as\na declaration of belief in Christianity in a more popular and general sense. It\ncertainly appears to me that this is a mistaken interpretation of the terms;\nthat they imply only a general assent to the truth of the Christian revelation\nand, at most, to the supernatural occurrences which establish its authenticity.\nThere may, however, and there appears to be, conscience<\/i> in this\nobjection; and all conscience ought to be respected. I was not aware, before I\nattended the discussions in the committee, of the extent to which this\nobjection prevailed.
\n
\nThere is one other consideration to which I will allude, although it was not\nurged in committee. It is this. This qualification is made applicable only to\nthe executive and the members of the legislature. It would not be easy,\nperhaps, to say why it should not be extended to the judiciary if it were\nthought necessary for any office. There can be no office in which the sense\nof religious responsibility is more necessary than in that of a judge;\nespecially of those judges who pass, in the last resort, on the lives, liberty,\nand property of every man<\/u>. There may be among legislators strong passions\nand bad passions. There may be party heats and personal bitterness. But\nlegislation is in its nature general: laws usually affect the whole society;\nand if mischievous or unjust, the whole society is alarmed and seeks their\nrepeal. The judiciary power, on the other hand, acts directly on individuals.\nThe injured may suffer without sympathy or the hope of redress. The last\nhope of the innocent, under accusation and in distress, is in the integrity of\nhis judges. If this fail, all fails; and there is no remedy on this side the\nbar of Heaven. Of all places, therefore, there is none which so imperatively\ndemands that he who occupies it should be under the fear of God, and above all\nother fear, as the situation of a judge<\/u>. For these reasons, perhaps, it\nmight be thought that the constitution has not gone far enough if the\nprovisions already in it were deemed necessary to the public security.
\n
\nI believe I have stated the substance of the reasons which appeared to have\nweight with the committee. For my own part, finding this declaration in the\nconstitution and hearing of no practical evil resulting from it, I should have\nbeen willing to retain it unless considerable objection had been expressed to\nit. If others were satisfied with it, I should be. I do not consider it,\nhowever, essential to retain it as there is another part of the constitution\nwhich recognizes, in the fullest manner, the benefits which civil society\nderives from those Christian institutions which cherish piety, morality, and\nreligion. I am clearly of opinion that we should not strike out of the\nconstitution all recognition of the Christian religion<\/u>. I am desirous,\nin so solemn a transaction as the establishment of a constitution, that we\nshould keep in it an expression of our respect and attachment to Christianity -\nnot, indeed, to any of its peculiar forms but to its general principles<\/u>.\"<\/span><\/b><\/o:p><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n

I have\nunderlined certain pertinent arguments raised by Daniel Webster in this\nspeech.\u00a0 That his arguments would today fall on deaf ears in many of our\nlegislative arenas and courtrooms is without doubt.\u00a0 Nevertheless, Webster\nclearly delineates that portion of our nation's heritage the leftists and\nliberals are so anxious to eliminate from the public consciousness.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

Tomorrow,\nwe'll wrap up our discussion on Daniel Webster with a portion of one more\nspeech he gave on the topic of Faith in Jesus Christ before taking a look at\nthe life of one of his (former) fellow-Federalists, Alexander Hamilton.<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

In case you\nare missing out on real fellowship in an environment of Ekklesia, our Sunday\nworship gatherings are available by conference call \u2013 usually at about 10:30AM Pacific.\u00a0 <\/span>That conference number is <\/span><\/b>(712) 770-4160<\/span><\/b>, and the\naccess code is <\/span><\/b>308640#.<\/span><\/b>\u00a0 <\/span>We are now making these gatherings\navailable on video usingZOOM.\u00a0 <\/span>If you wish\nto participate by video on ZOOM, our login ID is 835-926-513.\u00a0 <\/span>If you miss the live voice-onlycall, you can\ndial <\/span><\/b>(712) 770-4169<\/span><\/b>, enter the same access code and listen in later.\u00a0 <\/span>The video call, of course, is not recorded \u2013\nnot yet, anyway.<\/span><\/b><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

Blessings on you!<\/o:p><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n

\u00a0<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

Regner<\/span><\/b><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n

Regner A. Capener<\/span><\/b>
\nCAPENER MINISTRIES<\/b><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

RIVER WORSHIP CENTER<\/span>
\nTemple, Texas 76502<\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

Email Contact: <\/span>CapenerMinistries@protonmail.com<\/span><\/u><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

\u00a0<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

All Coffee Break articles are copyright by Regner A.\nCapener, but authorization for reprinting, reposting, copying or re-use, in\nwhole or in part, is granted \u2013provided proper attribution and this notice are\nincluded intact. Older Coffee Break archives are available .<\/span><\/u> Coffee Break articles are normally published\nweekly.
\n
\nIf you would like to have these articles arrive each morning in your email,\nplease send a blank email to: <\/span>AnotherCoffeeBreak@protonmail.com<\/span><\/u> with the word, \u201cSubscribe\u201d in the subject line.\u00a0 <\/span>To remove yourself from the mailing list,\nplease send a blank email to <\/span>AnotherCoffeeBreak@protonmail.com<\/span><\/a> with the word \u201cUnsubscribe\u201d in the subject\nline. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

\u00a0<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n

CAPENER MINISTRIES<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span>is\na tax-exempt church ministry. Should you desire to participate and covenant\nwith us as partners in this ministry, please contact us at either of the above\nemail or physical addresses, or visit:\u00a0<\/span>http:\/\/www.RiverWorshipCenter.org<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n

<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div> \n
<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We started talking about Daniel Webster yesterday, and I was concerned that the discussion would take up a whole lot more time than I wanted to spend for the day so we’ll finish up talking about him today.
\nWe finished the day with a portion of his December 1820 speech to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention; and in a minute, we’ll go back to it for some more.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[204,1],"tags":[205,65,130],"class_list":["post-5431","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-204","category-another-coffee-break","tag-205","tag-another-coffee-break","tag-april"],"yoast_head":"\nANOTHER COFFEE BREAK: OUR FOREFATHERS\u2019 COVENANTS, Part 20 - Regners Morning Coffee<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"ANOTHER COFFEE BREAK: OUR FOREFATHERS\u2019 COVENANTS, Part 20 - Regners Morning Coffee\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"We started talking about Daniel Webster yesterday, and I was concerned that the discussion would take up a whole lot more time than I wanted to spend for the day so we'll finish up talking about him today. We finished the day with a portion of his December 1820 speech to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention; and in a minute, we'll go back to it for some more.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Regners Morning Coffee\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-04-24T12:03:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"coffee\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"coffee\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"coffee\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/b4475bd1dbeb84d0016274b68e3de28f\"},\"headline\":\"ANOTHER COFFEE BREAK: OUR FOREFATHERS\u2019 COVENANTS, Part 20\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-24T12:03:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":4285,\"keywords\":[\"2020\",\"Another Coffee Break\",\"April\"],\"articleSection\":[\"2020\",\"ANOTHER COFFEE BREAK:\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\\\/\",\"name\":\"ANOTHER COFFEE BREAK: OUR FOREFATHERS\u2019 COVENANTS, Part 20 - Regners Morning Coffee\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-24T12:03:06+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/b4475bd1dbeb84d0016274b68e3de28f\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"ANOTHER COFFEE BREAK: OUR FOREFATHERS\u2019 COVENANTS, Part 20\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/\",\"name\":\"Regners Morning Coffee\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/b4475bd1dbeb84d0016274b68e3de28f\",\"name\":\"coffee\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\\\/blogger\\\/author\\\/coffee\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"ANOTHER COFFEE BREAK: OUR FOREFATHERS\u2019 COVENANTS, Part 20 - Regners Morning Coffee","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"ANOTHER COFFEE BREAK: OUR FOREFATHERS\u2019 COVENANTS, Part 20 - Regners Morning Coffee","og_description":"We started talking about Daniel Webster yesterday, and I was concerned that the discussion would take up a whole lot more time than I wanted to spend for the day so we'll finish up talking about him today. We finished the day with a portion of his December 1820 speech to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention; and in a minute, we'll go back to it for some more.","og_url":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\/","og_site_name":"Regners Morning Coffee","article_published_time":"2020-04-24T12:03:06+00:00","author":"coffee","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"coffee","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\/"},"author":{"name":"coffee","@id":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/#\/schema\/person\/b4475bd1dbeb84d0016274b68e3de28f"},"headline":"ANOTHER COFFEE BREAK: OUR FOREFATHERS\u2019 COVENANTS, Part 20","datePublished":"2020-04-24T12:03:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\/"},"wordCount":4285,"keywords":["2020","Another Coffee Break","April"],"articleSection":["2020","ANOTHER COFFEE BREAK:"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\/","url":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\/","name":"ANOTHER COFFEE BREAK: OUR FOREFATHERS\u2019 COVENANTS, Part 20 - Regners Morning Coffee","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-04-24T12:03:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/#\/schema\/person\/b4475bd1dbeb84d0016274b68e3de28f"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/another-coffee-break-our-forefathers-covenants-part-20\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"ANOTHER COFFEE BREAK: OUR FOREFATHERS\u2019 COVENANTS, Part 20"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/#website","url":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/","name":"Regners Morning Coffee","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/#\/schema\/person\/b4475bd1dbeb84d0016274b68e3de28f","name":"coffee","url":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/author\/coffee\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5431","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5431"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5431\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5434,"href":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5431\/revisions\/5434"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/regnersmorningcoffee.com\/blogger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}