Notes on the State of Virginia

Excuse the Jeffersonian title, but after a visit to Richmond, I am wondering what I might say in a modern-day version of the Notes.

Clearly the history of the place is overwhelming. Richmond is virtually the historical navel of the country. Go down to the water's edge (to the banks of the James) and, not only do you get a sense of the bridges that once carried Confederate troops over it, but you read that Richmond (Powhatan) was the navigable limit of the James reached by Captain John Smith in 1608.

Go out to Hanover Tavern, half an hour away - Hanover for George I, by the way - and you read how in 1781, Lord Cornwallis and General Washington missed each other here by a matter of days, only to turn east a mile south of here and meet for the final showdown at Yorktown. Stuart rode around McClellan's forces stationed here at Hanover Courthouse in 1862.


In Richmond, capital of the old Confederacy, I also get a sense of having stepped into the other side of the great debate (to coin a phrase for the Civil War). Am I imagining it, or do I now really get a sense of what the South must feel, just from wandering around, adopting an awed attitude to DC (the monolith up the road), or from walking along Monument Ave, that grand thoroughfare, and seeing the statues erected to J.E.B. Stuart, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson in the late 19th century?

It is hard to believe the South lost, or that these men were 'in rebellion', so highly are they honoured. And at first I thought it was sympathy for the underdog that had possessed me. 'He lost his life defending the South', read a headstone in Hollywood Cemetary, and I thought, 'That's it. You automatically admire those who are defending their land against the invader.' Except that, then I reminded myself that the South fired first. The strength and persuasiveness of this 'homage' says something about the power of the mere act of 'veneration'. You don't even have to agree with the honoree to be affected; the veil of romanticism has been created.

I kind of get it - States' Rights. If you think of the states as separate countries, it makes sense. No wonder so few Americans have passports - California, Maine, Louisiana, Wyoming... are sufficiently different to sustain interest. When Jefferson said, 'my country', he mostly meant 'Virginia'.

And this was the experiment in government the Virginians wanted to make - 'separate countries' loosely bound by a few, undeniable but limited, continental concerns. As a Virginian explained, to Virginians the federal government may only exercise the powers specifically delegated to it under the Constitution. (I haven't yet asked a Virginian why a Virginian, Washington, accepted Hamilton's definition of implied powers. And the John Marshall House was shut when we were there,

so I didn't get a chance to hear how the guides presented the longest-serving Chief Justice's work, which basically, in most of his judicial decisions, cemented a stronger union.) But the looser form of federalism is meant to work. Is it the case that it hasn't been allowed to? And is there a resentment that it was Virginia, so slighted, that produced four of the country's first five presidents? (In Fredericksburg, we saw James Monroe's 'town plot'.)

As I say, I kind of get it - States' Rights. 'So do I', said an African-American woman we met, 'but to me it means "Jim Crow".'

But yet, I liked Richmond. It has leafy, walkable suburbs, with cafes.

It has villages and cinemas. When we were here in 1996 the city seemed very run down, and yet there is renovation everywhere.

There is history galore.

Jefferson modelled this, the Capitol, on the Maison Carree. Here former vice president Aaron Burr was tried (by John Marshall) for treason. Here, Lee received his commission.

 Parts of it reminded me of Melbourne: Royal Parade...

or Sydney Road, Coburg or North Carlton. Perhaps it's not a superficial comparison. At first I put it down to the presence of a university. Find a nice village here in the States, and you're bound to find a university - Berkeley, San Luis Obispo, Princeton, Chapel Hill...But beyond that I put it down to old English ideals of town living - harmony, community...

Of course, as long as you weren't a slave. But visiting here has made me want to look deeper into this. What makes Richmond tick? And what is a true history? And now something else occurs to me. Jefferson, who owned property in slaves, specifically omitted 'property' when he copied George Mason's list of 'unalienable rights' into the Declaration.

Liberty

In Washington, the seat of government, my thoughts turn to the concept of 'liberty'.

There are those who pursue the idea of liberty down to questioning the need for a Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA ('more Washington', 'more regulation'). And yet, there is always a point where even the most libertarian politician will call a halt to all-out freedom. It might be a woman's right to choose, it might be gay marriage...


There always seems to be a point where even Liberty's staunchest advocates tolerate some hemming in. In the Declaration of Independence, 'liberty' shares its keynote clause with 'life' and 'the pursuit of happiness'. In the Constitution, as a keyword search tells me, 'liberty' appears only once along with a whole list of other aims. In Gouvernor Morris's great words: 'to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...'

I suppose 'liberty' is better suited to a clarion call than some of the other aims. After all, Patrick Henry did not cry, 'Give me general Welfare or give me death,' or 'Give me happiness or give me death.' But it would be interesting to find out how liberty came to be almost exclusively the only virtue.

Of course, there is a lot of wriggle room to achieve liberty in. In a country like Australia, where we have far more government intervention, an atheist, red-haired, unmarried woman who lives with her boyfriend can become Chief Executive.

A royal rejoinder (thoughts on music and the republic)

Perhaps the most memorable image for me, watching the Royal Wedding over here on CBS, was the number of people in London streets able to sing 'Jerusalem'. I also thought how lucky the British are to have had composers like Parry, Walton and Elgar who could write music to match imperial occasions or any occasion: living in an age when composers wrote for something bigger and more important to them than their own selves - the occasion, the subject, the patron or the audience. The other composers on this occasion were also able to write suitable music too - Rutter, Mealor and the fanfares by Wing Commander Stubbs. But the other striking feature of the music by Walton and Parry is it achieves this sense of occasion without losing any of its own - what Stravinsky would have called - 'physiognomy'. It's still instantly recognisable as those composers' music. Nothing is lost by serving the occasion.

The other 'heresy' that struck me while watching people in the street sing 'Jerusalem' was: "The Monarchy is not going away any time soon." Even in Australia, the republic is, say, 138 behind maybe 137 other more pressing issues. And perhaps, heresy number 3: it deserves to be.

The most substantial objection to a continuation of the monarchy in Australia would probably be the reserve powers of the governor-general, who can, and has (in 1975), sacked the democratically-elected parliament and closed down the parliament that immediately voted to restore that government. But even in a republic, someone will probably have that power. I would hope that it would be someone more qualified than a Logie winner or Olympic gold-medallist. But we don't know. Where is the detail? Where is the argument? "We should"; "it's time"; "the country around Alhyekelyelhe is nothing like the Cotswalds" (actually that's my argument). But think about what happened here - over two decades of argument from John Dickinson's Letters from a Farmer to the Bill of Rights, 85 articles of roughly 2,000 words' length trying to convince just the New York legislature to ratify the Constitution (that is, The Federalist Papers). The American colonists wanted a republic so badly the guys at Philadelphia pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honour to the cause. I suspect Australians would always prefer to go to the beach before it gets to that.

PS. I also loved the trees (English field maples and hornbeams) down the nave. It was good enough to be a transformation scene from Parsifal. But this was the truly modern touch for me.

Such a thing as society

A friend from interstate warned us that if we wanted to come and stay we’d need our own car - there’s no public transport where he lives because of budget cuts. He also said that if we wanted to go into State Archives, it’s only open one day a week (more budget cuts). As for Oakland, a lot of the pavements around here don’t seem to have been fixed since the 30s – I know because they’re dated. I wonder if many Americans realise that this sort of shabbiness reflects on civic pride? But what can be done about it? The Constitution mandates low taxes. Apparently.
On Saturday, we drove down to San Luis Obispo, down the Royal Way, the 'camino real', lined with bells, the route the monks took when they established all the missions. It was a great cultural experience. At one point, probably around Greenfield, where asparagus and lettuce fills the distance, we had the choice of six FM stations broadcasting in Spanish. I enjoyed listening to them in the hope of learning something. ‘Cinque cento uno? Aha, 501!’ At a roundabout in Morro Bay, as we sat behind an SUV sporting a Central Coast Tea Party bumper bar sticker, I saw a ‘Volunteer Police Vehicle’. Are things really that bad?  But then, as we drove into San Luis Obispo I saw a banner advertising the Civic Ballet of San Luis Obispo’s production of The Firebird. It strikes me that all these towns have quite impressive arts organisations. Sacramento has a Philharmonic and an Opera. Santa Rosa and San Jose have Symphonies. As one of the local CEOs told me it’s one of the first things that is established in a town - a symphony and a chorus. And they’re mostly all financed by private donation. The donor lists are huge.
I noticed driving back up to San Simeon that there is a program called Adopt-a-Highway. Part of the highway north of Cambrio was funded by the San Luis Obispo Republican Party. The next sector was funded by the employees of Hearst’s Castle. Is this how it’s meant to be done?  Great institutions and facilities funded by people and organisations voluntarily deciding where to allocate their funds? But how do you ensure funds are distributed where they’re desperately needed? And isn’t there a shortfall? There just doesn’t seem to be sufficient private funding to fix all potholes. What’s heartening however is that there is apparently a desire to contribute, regardless of the attitude to private and public funding.