A Call to Peace by the Dalai Lama

“Ethics for the New Millennium”

By His Holiness the Dali Lama

            In 1949 a 16 year old monk designated as the 14^th Dali Lama in Tibet was forced to flee his country after the Chinese invasion there. The Dalai Lama and millions of his people suffered great loss, and Tibetans are still suffering under the harsh rule of Communist China. Despite this, the Dalai Lama has spent his entire time in exile traveling to countries promoting the message of non-violence and peaceful resolution preached by one of his heroes Mahatma Gandhi. These efforts earned His Holiness world-wide acclaim and in 1989 the Nobel Peace Prize. Using the notoriety as a platform for peace, the Dalai Lama stated in his acceptance speech in Oslo in December of 1989, “As we enter the final decade of this Century (20^th) I am optimistic that the ancient values that have sustained mankind are today reaffirming themselves to prepare us for a kinder, happier twenty-first century.”

And there was reason for hope. The fall of the Berlin Wall promised an end to the cold war and the opportunity for the restoration of human rights in those countries living behind the Iron Curtain for so long. But once again brutal civil wars and ethnic cleansing reared its ugly head in the Balkan area along the Mediterranean during the 90’s. The Chinese government continued its brutal policies against the voices of freedom with the June 3, 1989 massacre at Tiananmen Square and the arrests and purges that followed. As the Dalai Lama traveled to the United Nations in support of peaceful negotiations to end this suffering, he had the opportunity to meet with political as well as religious leaders of the free world. As the Twentieth Century came to a close the Dali Lama decided to write a book about what he believed would be the hope for mankind to come together and create the peaceful world he believed all sentient beings from all nations and all religious faiths desired. “Ethics for a new Millennium” was the result.

In this ground breaking book that spent over three months on the New York Times Bestseller List, the Dalai Lama makes a call for a global spiritual revolution. Although His Holiness states that he is of the Buddhist religion, his book is “not a religious book.” He is a firm believer in religious pluralism. What he means by “spiritual” is finding that connection inside of us that transcends the physical part of us (the five senses) that is selfish and materialistically motivated to find compassionate concern for all sentient beings as the motivation for our actions. In the past, people connected with this part of themselves through their religious faith, thereby finding a moral path within the context of their overall pursuit of salvation.

According to the Dalai Lama, the growth of science has led to the decline of religion worldwide and with it, the moral path. He believes there is a global need for people of all religious and non-religious beliefs to find a path of ethical conduct that will result in brother and sisterhood and love and compassion as the basis for determining what constitutes positive and negative behavior or what is “right and wrong.” Therefore, he believes there is a need for individuals to find a way to “reorient our thoughts and emotions and reorder our behavior, not only so we can learn to cope with suffering more easily, but so that we can prevent a deal of it from happening in the first place.” The answer, he believes is what he calls “spiritual ethics.”

In Part I of “Ethics for a New Millennium” the Dalai Lama lays the foundation (or justification) for spiritual ethics. Part II describes the relationship between spiritual ethics and individual behavior as well as defines the most important ethics. In Part III he describes how individual practice of spiritual ethics fits into the overall global picture of ending war and human suffering and creating peace.

After the events of September 11, 2001, the hope that the Dalai Lama predicted in 1999 seems to have faded as the threat of war in Europe has declined only to be replaced by soaring wars and tensions in the Middle East and Asia. I believe there is a need for another call for a spiritual revolution and a revival of the reading and practice of the principles laid down in the book. That is why I am offering an opportunity to read and begin serious practice of the principles of spiritual ethics in an eight week class that will begin April 30, 2013. The cost of the class is $50 per person and will be limited to 10 people. For more information or registration, you may pick up flyers at the James Twyman Concert on Friday, April 12 at the Florence Playhouse (Florence, Oregon) or email me at duffey.brenda@gmail.com. As Gandhi said in his simple, matter of fact way: “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Peace begins with me.

             

Time for Restoring Individual Rights

'Proposed 28th Amendment' to the U.S. Constitution: 'Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives. . .'

The debate over gun control and the Second Amendment goes on and on with no solution

or compromise in sight. Each side has its arguments – those opposed to gun control hold up the glorious Founding Fathers who put this Amendment into the Constitution so that citizens could protect their families and  homes from threats not only from wild animals or criminals but also threats this new military might present. Therefore, any attempt to deny them that right is unconstitutional. Those in favor of gun control say that assault weapons in the hands of the wrong people need to be controlled for the safety of the general public. I think this is the gist of the two opposing arguments. I think both sides have lost the actual historical perspective that was the reason for the protection of the Second Amendment which was part of the original Bill of Rights that had to be added to the Constitution before the public would ratify the document.

            Each of the first ten amendments was considered important to protect the citizens of the country against a central government that would use the power given to it to usurp the rights of the citizens the way the kings of England had done. One of the powers that this new Constitution proposed for the central government was the right to establish a military. The Founding Fathers realized that giving that power to a central government without their equal power to protect themselves from the government’s abuse of that power was not something they were willing to risk. Therefore, before they ratified this new government and gave it the power to establish a “standing militia,” they wanted to know that they had the right to keep their own weapons to protect themselves against that militia should the need arise. This was the purpose for that amendment. In 1787 the guns that citizens had were just as powerful as those that the new standing army established by the Constitution had, so the citizens felt this right to “keep and bear arms” was enough protection. This is not 1787, however.

            In understanding the history behind this Amendment, then, if we fast forward to the 21^st Century, Americans have the right to “keep and bear arms” in equal proportion to what the giant military industrial complex has attained. Therefore, Americans can devise nuclear weapons and have tanks, and heavy duty assault weapons of every kind should they feel the need to protect themselves from this power. This is well within the intent of the Second Amendment as written in 1787.  If this sounds preposterous, and indeed it should, perhaps Americans need to look at some revision of the second Amendment that fits with the 21^st Century and our protection against a government that, in my opinion, has gone too far in the creation of bigger and better weapons.

What if the government decided to turn its drones used in the Middle East against populations in targeted areas of pockets of danger in this country? What good would shotguns and even assault weapons do? What is happening in Syria could very well happen in this country. I believe Americans do need the protection of the second Amendment because I think history has shown how far out of control the American government is in terms of a military and usurping power at every level,  but I think the Amendment  needs overhauling.

 I think people, in lieu of the second Amendment, should demand that the President and Congress begin immediately to demilitarize this country and establish a Department of Peace to review the intent of the second Amendment and how to alter it in the best interests of every citizen in this country – not the special interest groups and huge corporate cartels that control Congress. I also believe there is merit to the proposed 28^th Amendment listed in the heading at the start of this article. It is time Congress stopped making laws that continue to erode our personal freedoms and only give them more power and control and start thinking about laws that apply to all citizens equally thereby beginning to break up this massive, powerful oligarchy that continues to keep citizens paralyzed under the guise of “protecting us and our freedoms.”

A Lesson from the Amish

The recent tragedy in Connecticut is not the first school shooting in the United States. A chronology of the last 20+ years of shootings reveals a list of about 20 in which a gunman gets onto school grounds and begins shooting until he is either subdued or turns the weapon on himself. This shooting is unique because of the numbers killed plus the age of most of the victims. Now the media is busy focusing on the tragedy and beginning again to put together a “profile” of the killer in order to keep weapons from such people. There is also the renewal of the never ending debate on gun control.

 Leaders are busy trying to find a way to make individual citizens feel safe when they leave the security of their homes to go about their daily lives. I do not wish to belittle the tragedy that has occurred for 26 families in Connecticut, but I believe we are expecting too much of our leaders, especially the federal government. This type of tragedy is a signal of the breakdown of communities and it behooves the individuals in all communities across this nation to start looking at what is happening in their community and take responsibility for fixing it – not expecting some entity from Washington, D.C. to come in and help solve the problem for them. Perhaps we can learn how to do this by looking at a community that suffered the same kind of loss on October 2, 2006.

On that day a well known member of the Amish community named Charles Carl Roberts IV aged 32 walked into the one-room school house and took the entire student body hostage before killing five girls and then shooting himself. First responders did, indeed, come to the scene until the crisis ended, but, afterward, the Amish did not reach to federal officials or other agencies for help to survive this tragedy and move forward. There was no cry for better gun control; in fact, the Amish do not own guns. What did the Amish do?

One of the basic tenants of the Amish faith (Amish Grace- How Forgiveness Transcended Tragedy by Donald B. Kraybill et al) is that believers cannot be forgiven their earthly transgressions and enter into heaven if they cannot forgive their transgressors on Earth. Therefore, the Amish set about forgiving Mr. Roberts. Everyone in the community knew Mr. Roberts. Families affected by his actions took food to his family and offered comfort to them in their time of grief. The nation was astounded by this act as they read about these events. The community came together, offered solace and forgiveness to all involved and recovered without any government intervention.

What lesson can we learn from this even if we are not followers of the Amish faith? The first lesson is that the best way to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands is for each adult individual in the community to take the responsibility to know his or her neighbors. If there is need or suffering there, take action. Inform responsible agencies in the community about this. Take compassionate action ahead of time. Look people in the eye when going about daily activities. Teach the adolescents in the community to get involved with community service and do peer monitoring before a tragedy occurs. Prevention is much preferred to intervention and the prevention begins at home.

Parents need to know their children and other parents need to support all parents in their efforts to monitor and control adolescents. But the most important lesson of all is love and forgiveness. Until society can learn to forgive those who transgress with compassion instead of making them into media “heroes,” this type of activity will continue.  

A study of our nation’s history provides hundreds of names that have been glorified in the past and present by the media and Hollywood. Billy the Kid, Bat Masterson, Doc Holiday, Jesse and Frank James, Bugs Moran, and Bonnie and Clyde are only a few who come to mind. What were the names of their victims? Gun violence is not new. War is the ultimate result of belief that violence will end violence. The anger and resentment toward the “enemy” continues, however, long after the guns have been “laid down” and festers and simmers until another outbreak begins. Many times those who are fighting have lost any idea about the reason for the war.

During the Peace Convention of 1915, one of the most stirring speeches against World War I came from Frau Hofrath von Lecher of Austria. She had been an upper-class housewife who became a nurse in a hospital for the wounded. Although charged with the care of hundreds of severely wounded soldiers, she had no supplies to tend to them – not even any food. She asked the soldiers, “What are you fighting for?”

They replied, “We do not know – we were told to fight.” When they found that she was to attend the Peace Convention, they begged her to implore the nations of the earth to make peace in the names of their wives and children.

We are at a point in our nation where we have lost any idea of who the enemy is because we have forgotten why man began to live in communities in the first place. It was to rise above the “every man for himself” Law of the Jungle attitude. The Amish have not forgotten this and their community moved forward and transcended the tragedy that beset them that October day. Hopefully, we as a nation of communities can learn this lesson and move beyond the most recent tragedy in compassionate love and forgiveness. We call ourselves a Christian nation. Perhaps we should remember the words of Jesus as he suffered death by crucifixion, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”  (Luke 23:34)

Hills of Home

I wrote this poem in 2005 when I first felt the call to move back to my Kentucky roots. I have pulled it out once more to share in the hope that within the next year I will be back in the region where my ancestors lived and are buried and where I feel truly "at home and at peace."

In the summers of her youthful past,

She walked barefoot through the long bladed grass

That grew along the honey suckled hills of

Her Old Kentucky Home.

And the perfumed air that filled her lungs

Brought a spark of life into her infant soul

Nourished by the wild berries she watched ripen and grow

Into cobblers and homemade ice cream

For summers’ eves with lightening bugs aglow.

But the robin in spring and red bird in winter,

Chirped a call heard deep within her,

To trade her Sunday shoes that walked the straight and narrow path

For sparkling, glass slippers that yearned to roam

In search of love and adventure far from her Old Kentucky Home.

And romance blossomed among the garden paths of Versailles

And the Left Bank of Paris.

But the slippers faded into shimmering moonlight on the Seine,

So she found garden clogs to work the terrain

To build love and contentment with a home of her own

Amid the honey suckled vines of her Old Kentucky Home.

But the robin in spring and red bird in winter

Chirped a call heard deep within her,

To follow her love to Eldorado and the Seven Cities of Gold

Promised in stories and myths of old.

When that love withered and died in the desert heat,

She donned hiking boots to retreat

With her new love to the lush, green woodlands aside ocean dunes

 Amid quiet streams filled with salmon and the call of the loon.

Left alone in Eden by death’s early knell,

She felt her paradise turning to hell.

But she found solace for her soul biking the salty sea shore

And donned dancing shoes for music and loved once more.

But the strong winds in summer and heavy rains in winter,

Drowned love once more and sent her

Back to the rooted vines that climbed high on the hills

Of her Old Kentucky Home.

Now, in the autumn of her years she roams barefoot once more,

To the song of the robin in spring and red bird in winter

That chirp the secret of unconditional love rooted deep within her

And spreading wide across the hills of her Old Kentucky Home.

An Independant (slightly female oriented) View

Women’s Declaration of Independence

The following is a copy of the “Declaration of Women’s Sentiments” presented at the Seneca Falls Women’s Convention in 1848 with permission from Paul Halsall of Fordham University. First printing was in August, 1997 and updated in November 1998, http://halsall@murray.fordham.edu. This document was presented to about 400 delegates both men and women who attended the convention in 1848 and is preserved as the document that inspired the suffragette movement in the United States. Of those present 68 women and 32 men signed the document. Those refusing, including many influential leaders in the movement to abolish slavery, abstained because of the call for enfranchisement of women. The national response at this time was to give no attention to the document at all and give absolutely no press coverage except the small ad purchased to announce the convention. The women themselves were labeled irritants and crazies.

The Declaration of Sentiments

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer. while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled. The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyrranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.
He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.
He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men--both natives and foreigners.
Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.
He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.
He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.
He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master--the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.
He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes, and in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women--the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands.
After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single, and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it. (How long did we support this government without representation so that we find ourselves totally controlled economically today)? My thoughts in parentheses.
He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.
He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her.
He allows her in church, as well as state, but a subordinate position, claiming apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the church.
He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account in man.
He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and to her God.
He has endeavored, in every way that he could, to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.
Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation--in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States.
from Elizabeth Cady Stanton, A History of Woman Suffrage , vol. 1 (Rochester, N.Y.: Fowler and Wells, 1889), pages 70-71.
This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.
(c)Paul Halsall Aug 1997, updated November 1998
halsall@murray.fordham.edu

The original “Declaration of Independence” was written in 1776 and supposedly, that is what laid the basis for this great “republic” and “democracy.” The white men it gave freedom fared very well, and they built a great country and amassed a tremendous amount of wealth, first by genocide of original inhabitants, slavery and the work and toil of women denied enfranchisement for another 70+ years after the Women’s Declaration of Independence. For any woman who believes this government that exists today was the result of some great sacrifices the Founding Fathers made for us, perhaps you need to review your history books and get the true story of the women’s movement – not the propaganda imposed by the male leaders of both political parties. Yes, one of them is of African ethnicity, but as far as I know, his ancestors were never slaves. In addition, even male slaves got the right to vote before women.
Read about your heritage and what it was that these “Founding Mothers” wanted for the women they represented. It has been only recently that political parties have given attention to women, primarily because of their voting power and, like the political machines of the early twentieth century; they are offering women crumbs to get their votes so they can continue the militaristic, fascist government they have been running since 1776. I know I write these words at the risk of being labeled another crazy, like Jane Addams. Ms. Addams was put of the Red List of the 1920’s for her work that resulted with her winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1933. What was her work? She fought to keep us out of war in 1915 and then to feed the starving children of Europe, Germany and the Soviet Union in particular, was a leader in the suffragette movement, supported the International Court of Arbitration at The Hague, the League of Nations, fought to get child labor laws and better working conditions for women in the garment industry and founded what became the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). To learn about the politics that inspired the women’s movement, read Jane Addams “Newer Ideals for Peace” 1907 and “Bread and Peace in Time of War,” 1922.

Keep these things in mind when you go to the polls and find the candidates that best support women’s political heritage from your local council, state representatives, governors, Congressional representatives and senators, and finally, the President. By the way, you know your vote will not count if you live in a state that is decidedly in favor of one of the major candidates. Your vote does not elect the President anyway; that’s up to an organization called the Electoral College.

For further reading in fictional form read “The Peacemaker” available at http://kentuckywoman.net  or visit the video page at http://angelbandproductions.com for selected readings about the women’s movement in the latter part of the 19^th Century and the beginning of the 20^th Century.

Iran, Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction

Listening to the vice presidential debate last night, I heard Paul Ryan criticizing the present administration about its handling of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. I found Mr. Biden’s rebuttal very interesting. If Mr. Biden’s facts are correct, Iran is not yet at the point of being able to threaten Israel with nuclear weapons and there is still time for negotiations to work. In listening to the discussion, I was reminded of another time when President Bush defied the United Nations and insisted there was proof of stores of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and no more time to wait for negotiations to work. Convincing Congress that his belief was true, he gained the funds to carry out his program of “shock and awe” and send American troops into Iraq. No weapons were found, but the war continued, costing thousands of American lives while maiming others for life and draining not only the morale of American troops but also the federal budget in yet another questionable war.

My desire for peace and opposition to the Iraq War was the reason for returning to vote for the Democratic candidates in 2004 and 2008. Until that time, I had not voted for a major party candidate since 1988. This year I had decided to cast my ballot for Jill Stein after I read the platform of the Green Party. Part of the platform in addition to supporting environmental concerns and peace covers building sustainable communities. These are the issues that are most important to me. I believe unemployment and poverty stem from militarism and corporate control of the economy and politicians. I also don’t believe continuing to expand federal control of every aspect of American life is the best way to address these issues. Action must start in local communities with local citizens taking control of their communities and rebuilding their infrastructures through community organization and support from first the state and then the federal government. I knew I would be “throwing my vote away,” but at least I could vote for the person who best represented my interests. Last night’s debate has changed this.

If I understood Mr. Ryan correctly as well as recent statements made by Mr. Romney himself, America must take a tough, confrontational stance against Iran right now. That scares me. We are still trying to get our troops out of Afghanistan, have an economy that is in critical condition, according to Mr. Romney, and if elected, he would risk the threat of another war? The first question is “where will the money come from?” I think we need someone more responsible and less impulsive who is commander in chief of the American armed forces. In fact, the major duty of the President according to the Constitution is to oversee the nation’s military. In addition, he is in charge of all diplomacy with other nations. In my opinion the diplomacy should be one of patience and compromise. Only when these have actually failed should we send American citizens into “harm’s way” and put the financial burden of yet another war on the backs of the so called middle class. For that reason, I think I will have to once again cast my vote for the person who stands the best chance of winning and puts negotiation and compromise ahead of impulsive military actions.   

If Women Could Have Voted in 1776

What would have happened in our country if women had been franchised at the very start of this so called republic? Hindsight is always 20/20 and of course, we can’t go back and undo the past, we can only learn the lessons from it. Unfortunately, if we don’t soon learn the lessons from our past in this country, we face a future that will continue with all consuming wars on a global level that not only deplete the resources that sustain our physical life but drain the human spirit of any desire to move forward. This is one of the themes of my book “The Peacemaker” available at http://kentuckywoman.net.

The story of “The Peacemaker” begins with a peaceful and prosperous culture that had been created by an Onondaga Chief – Ayonwentah – who had been approached by a person called only The Peacemaker in the Legends of the Iroquois. During this visit by The Peacemaker when Ayonwentah had lost everything including his wife and children due to the never ending wars fought among the various tribes inhabiting one of the richest lands in North America Ayonwentah learned the Great Law of Peace – what it took to build a culture that would guarantee peace and prosperity. Ayonwentah started visiting the warring tribes and preaching this message and soon, the great Iroquois Confederacy was started sometime in the 11^th Century. This Confederacy was the most powerful and prosperous group that existed on the North American Continent when the Europeans arrived in the 15^th Century. They had the means to drive the “immigrants” out but true to their culture they welcomed them in peace and taught them the principles of peace and prosperity that lead to a thriving culture of “13 fires” included in the council of tribes of the Confederacy. These principles were:

• Stewardship of the land – taking from the land the resources needed to live but always giving back so that the land would continue to produce. Property rights came from stewardship and natural resources were shared.
• Empowerment of women – all property passed through the female line because the women were the “keepers of the hearth and home.”
• Inclusion of women in the government – klan mothers – the eldest female in the extended family appointed all the members to the representative councils and could remove any of the representatives if they violated any of the laws passed by the council. Women also had absolute veto over any decision to go to war.
• Government by consensus and conflict mediation.
• Cooperation instead of competition.
• Sealing the peace with treaties known as covenant chains.

This culture became rich and powerful using these principles. In fact, the Founding Fathers were so impressed with their “democracy” that elements of their government were used as the model for our first government. Unfortunately, the government that called itself a Republic was actually an oligarchy – giving voting rights only to a small group of white males over the age of twenty-one who owned property and accumulated property and resources to build their wealth and influence in the name of “democracy.” Because of this the new country immediately began to build a national treasury controlled by these bankers and create a national military made up of the men who had no vote over whether we went to war or not. When these men got the right to vote, they continued with the policies of “might makes right.” As the Industrial Revolution reached the United States and fortunes began to be made by these men who controlled the property and government, competition for cheap labor began. At the same time, the soil in the South began to wear out, forcing southern land owners to find newer sources of good soil to grow King Cotton.

During this period women began to question the morality of this thing called slavery and became involved in the Abolition Movement. When Lucretia Mott and others attended the Anti-slavery Conference in London in 1848, they were appalled that they were not seated at the Conference nor could they vote. Thus, the Women’s Rights Movement began with the Seneca Falls Conference in 1848. At this conference a Declaration of Women’s Rights was read that was pattered after the “Declaration of Independence.” One of these rights was the right to own property. This right again from the Declaration was that to “secure these rights” (of property) it was imperative that women have the right to vote.

After the Convention another meeting was held in the home of Lucretia Mott to organize the Underground Railroad. These women seeking political power were the voices against slavery and the treatment of the new breed of laborers in northern factories – the newer immigrants put to work building the transportation systems, settling new lands and making this country powerful while fighting in the wars to expand this aggressive government into new lands west of the Mississippi needed for continued growth as the land wore out. Women’s voices went unheard and we finally ended up in a Civil War that was to cost over 700,000 American lives and totally destroy the southern economy of the United States. The women who had organized against slavery now came together to organize for peace, but in order to achieve peace; they once again knew they needed the right to vote. The origins of the Mother’s Day Celebration began with a call in a poem written by Julia Ward Howe at the end of the Civil War which is read at the link below.

http://youtu.be/KyQZM8AILfs

At the end of the Indian Wars near the end of the 19^th Century America turned its attention to lands overseas and became embroiled in political matters and wars that threatened world peace. The suffragettes continued with their demands for the right to vote in order to abate the threat of global wars. Their cause was ignored and many of the leaders were imprisoned and beaten. Susan B. Anthony spent time in jail and Jane Addams was labeled a communist after the end of World War I for her efforts to feed the millions of hungry people left in war ravaged Europe. Unfortunately, women did not get the right to vote until 1919 after World War I and all of the ramifications that set the stage for yet another global conflict. So, what would the 20^th Century look like if women had the right to vote in 1776? We know what it looks like now because they didn’t. If we, as women, want to honor this legacy of the courageous women who gave “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor” for the cause of peace, we need to stand up and say “no” in a loud voice to war or any policies that would deplete the earth’s abilities to sustain life. We, as women, are the “keepers of the hearth” first.