Do readers judge a book by its title?

Everyone knows the old axiom that people judge a book by its cover, but do they also judge books by their title? I don’t know. I suspect a great title can get readers to look further, a horrible title stops further inspection, and a mediocre title doesn't influence sales one way or the other.

The Barnes and Noble Book Blog posted an article “12 Books With The Most Irresistible Titles.” Good Titles, but I always liked Lonesome Dove because it sounded intriguing.

The Great Rehearsal might be the worst title I've encountered for a great book. Carl Van Doren wrote one of the top three history books on the Constitutional Convention. (In this amateur historian's humble opinion.)The book was published in 1948, when the United Nations was just starting up and Van Doren thought the 1787 Constitutional Convention was a rehearsal for writing the UN charter. This was a poor title that must have dampened sales of a fine history book.  Ironic, since the book never mentions current events except in a slapped together preface.

I've never agonized over my own titles, except for Tempest at Dawn, my own book on the Constitutional Convention. Since this was a novelization of the convention, I needed a title that didn't sound like a history book. I also liked the idea that the title reflected the turmoil in the infant country at the time of the convention.

I still like the title. Perhaps I should have agonized more over my other titles. The Steve Dancy titles: The Shopkeeper, Leadville, Murder at Thumb Butte, The Return, Jenny's Revenge, and Crossing the Animas are pedestrian. I like The Shout Mouth Society because it connotes secret society intrigue, which properly reflects the plot of this contemporary novel. Principled Action is a lousy title and may have affected sales of this nonfiction book about the founding period.

Authors may not be the best at selecting titles, but I’m not sure focus-group driven editors are better. My title for my computer technology book was Dinosaurs and Whippersnappers, but Wiley insisted on The Digital Organization. I still prefer my title.

Honest stories filled with dishonest characters.

Historical Novels Need a Fictional Title

Coming up with a good book title is difficult. Ideally, you want the title that will grab a buyer’s attention in three or so words. The title is actually only half of a selling partnership. The cover and title work together to entice a purchase. People do judge a book by its cover. The cover entails an image with a few words, and if either appears incongruent, buyers move on to the next offering.

My favorite is Tempest at Dawn. Since the book is a dramatization of the Constitutional Convention, I wanted a title that sounded like a novel, not a nonfiction history book. The cover design put the title in context: a stormy sky over the Pennsylvania State House flying a thirteen star flag. For me, the title evoked a troubled nation at its founding, but some criticized the title as unrelated to the story. I still like it.

In my Western series, I wanted the sub-title prominent to remind readers that there were more Steve Dancy Tales, so I chose simple titles that included: 

• The Shopkeeper, 
• Leadville, 
• Murder at Thumb Butte, 
• The Return, 
• Jenny's Revenge, 
• Crossing the Animas, 
• and soon, No Peace. 

The covers are black and white because I wanted a design that indicated that these were a different type of Western: different from books with loud, colorful cover illustrations showing action or looming violence. The series has been very successful, so hopefully this is partly due to the covers and titles because I intend to continue the pattern for the remaining books in the series.

Honest westerns filled with dishonest characters.

Power To The Regulators!

The Founders believed that consolidating executive, legislative, and judicial powers would threaten liberty, so to avoid this tragedy, they built our constitutional framework with checks and balances. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist 47 that “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Whew! Thank goodness we avoided that kind of government.

On second thought, we didn’t. Despite the Founders best efforts, Congress has concentrated executive, legislative, and judicial powers into regulatory agencies. Lazy legislators pass vague laws and then permit regulators to fill in the devilish details. Many of these regulatory agencies employ their own adjudication panels with internal appeal boards that judge the rightness or wrongness of their own actions. (A final appeal may be made to outside courts, but usually not until all of the agency’s protocols have run their course.) Lastly, regulatory agencies execute their own interpretation of laws, with—if White House responses to regulatory scandals are to be believed—no oversight by the top executive.

Surely, this can’t be right. It would violate every precept of the Founders.

Unfortunately, it’s true. In fact, amassing vast powers in regulatory agencies has become so commonplace, few take notice anymore. At least, few took notice until the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau raised this liberty-sapping drift to a brand new level.

Can Words On Parchment Constrain Executive Overreach?

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The Declaration of Independence used these words to legitimize our founding as a nation. Fifteen simple words, but they embodied a world-shattering idea. Kings supposedly derived their authority from God, but the Declaration declared that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These subversive words flipped the divine right of kings on its head. Instead of kings, God endowed all of mankind with natural rights.

Words can be powerful.

That is, unless they’re ignored. The Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” but many don’t accept that enumerated powers limit government action. Elected officials “solemnly swear … to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” but many view the words as cant uttered during a swearing-in ritual. Lesser laws are based on a reasonable man’s interpretation of the language, but many regard the “supreme law of the land” as a living document that can mean whatever we need it to mean on any particular day.

A Tale of Serendipity

I took historical accuracy seriously when I wrote Tempest at Dawn. I not only read dozens of books about the Constitutional Convention, but studied books on Eighteen Century lifestyle and technology; Philadelphia, New York, and New Haven; the international scene; and numerous biographies of the principle Framers of the Constitution. I also made numerous visits to New Haven, New York, Mount Vernon, Montpelier, and Philadelphia as part of my research.

The events and locations outside of the State House were as accurate as I could portray them. Two major venues in the book were the Indian Queen and City Tavern. (City Tavern remains intact, but alas, the Indian Queen is long gone.) In my penchant for accuracy, I tried to lodge the delegates in the appropriate Inns, homes, and taverns, but I couldn’t find where Roger Sherman stayed during the convention. After looking at every source I could find, I finally decided I would need to make something up. He was not rich, so he would probably stay at a boarding house. I used my wife’s maiden name and put him in a room at Mrs. Marshall’s boarding house. This was a fictional contrivance, but not my only one. I left my other protagonist, James Madison, at the upscale Indian Queen for the duration of the convention when he actually moved elsewhere at some point for privacy.

I Owe a Great Debt to One of The Founding Fathers

For Constitution Day, Steve Bartin wrote an American Thinker article about Roger Sherman, my favorite Founding Father. Sherman was a powerful influence on our founding and his progeny have been exceptionally influential in our nation’s history. I’m biased, course. In writing Tempest at Dawn, I wanted to present a personal perspective on the major conflicts at the Constitutional Convention. I stumbled around with a few different approaches until I decided to alternate point of view between James Madison and Roger Sherman. Each chapter would switch between these two characters to give the reader a personal as well as fact-based perspective. It worked far better than I expected.

Roger Sherman and James Madison provide a great contrast. Sherman was one of the few who could look the tall George Washington straight in the eye, while a wag described Madison as smaller than a used piece of soap. Sherman was the second oldest delegate and Madison among the youngest. Sherman was an abolitionist, while Madison owned over one hundred slaves. Sherman was taciturn, while Madison was talkative. (Sherman once dedicated a bridge by stomping on it, remarked that it appeared well built, and then walked away.)

Roger Sherman and James Madison

Celebrate Constitution Day by Buying Tempest at Dawn

Okay, that's a bit self-serving, but if you want to understand the Constitutional Convention, Tempest at Dawn is a good place to start. The novel accurately portrays the convention proceeding and the lifestyle of the delegates who attended. If you prefer a nonfiction account, then I recommend Decision In Philadelphia by Christopher Collier.

Death and Taxes

 “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” Ben Franklin

Franklin made the above quip many times, always to approving nods. Complaining about taxes is as American as apple pie, Thanksgiving, and NASCAR. After all, the Revolution started over a three pence tax on tea. Here is an excerpt from Tempest at Dawn that shows the Revolution didn't revoke Franklin's immutable law.

The owner of the Indian Queen appeared instantly. Bowing respectfully, he asked, “Gentlemen, is there anything else you desire … another ale, tea and cakes, a plate of cheese? We have excellent cognacs.”

“No, no,” Morris said. “We’re ready to retire. Thank you for your hospitality.”

The innkeeper never looked at Morris; instead he aimed a witless grin at Washington.

“My pleasure. The general’s always welcome at the Indian Queen.”

All evening, Madison had found the Innkeeper’s solicitous behavior irritating. Now he was amused by his inadvertent slight toward the rest of the party. Washington often elicited bumbling adulation.

“Thank you,” Washington said, with a regal nod of the head. “We’ll be in Philadelphia for a spell, so we’ll visit your fine establishment again.”

“Yes, the Federal Convention. A noble endeavor. My best wishes.”

“And what might those wishes be?” Washington asked.

Is the US Constitution Viable in the 21st Century?

Today, many people question the viability of our Constitution. People ask if 18th century men could anticipate the complex issues of the 21st Century. In other words, can something written over two hundred years ago direct a government in our modern world? The short answer is yes, but let me explain.

When James Madison brought the Virginia Plan to Philadelphia, it was not a list of laws, but a system of government. A system that forthrightly recognized the weaknesses of man, and delineated a set of checks and balances to distribute power; not just between the three branches of government, but also between the federal government and the states.

Although the delegates debated endlessly over the elements of the design, and made major revisions to Madison's plan, they always kept the debates focused on limiting centers of powers. They were serious men designing a system of government for the ages to protect liberty for themselves and their posterity. Although not a common phrase at the time, every one of the fifty-five men at the Federal Convention would agree with the maxim that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Lincoln at Cooper Union

Lincoln photo from day of speech

In early 1860, Abraham Lincoln was a little known regional politician from Springfield, Illinois. The Republican Party was new, and had failed running national hero John C. Frémont for president in 1856. Lincoln's chances of ascending to the presidency under the Republican banner were slight. All that changed in New York City on February 27, 1860. That afternoon, Lincoln had his photograph taken by Mathew Brady, and in the evening, he gave a historic speech at the Cooper Union. Lincoln often claimed that Brady’s photograph and his Cooper Union address propelled him to the presidency.

Below is a highly abridged version of Lincoln’s speech.

Celebrating Independence Day in 1787 While Drafting the Constitution

The following excerpt from Tempest at Dawn describes the Independence Day celebration held during the Constitutional Convention. The events and Reverend Campbell’s words are accurate to the historic record.

BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

The cannon fire hurt James Madison’s ears and teared his eyes as concussions pounded his body. Sulfuric mephitis scratched his throat, and the rotten egg odor made him queasy. The thirteen reports ended, but before Madison could draw a grateful and tranquil breath, the artillery brigade started another round.

After three consecutive resounding salutes of thirteen cannon shots, Madison felt exhausted. He had been jostling for a position from which to see the Independence Day celebration when the cannon fire assaulted his senses. The State House Commons throbbed with people keyed up with rum and excitement. The crowd churned on the periphery of the Commons, while the Society of the Cincinnati, the City Calvary, the Light Infantry, and a battalion of militia vied for attention in the center of the swirling people. Each military formation, spruced up in their finest regalia, stood eager to demonstrate their parade skills. The units waited, as did Madison, for the artillery to finish their noisy salute.

Philadelphia, as the site of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, took pride in holding the rowdiest Fourth of July gala in the nation. Festivities would go from dawn until deep into the night. The city echoed with public celebrations, ringing bells, and martial music. Every church would conduct special devotionals, and all 117 taverns would compete for revelers with loud entertainment. The formal celebrations had started early in the morning, with city officials, aspiring orators, and preachers making the customary thirteen toasts.

Would Divided Government Have Surprised the Founders?

Recent events in Washington make you wonder if anyone can get along inside the Beltway. It’s not just Democrats versus Republicans—now Democrats war with Democrats and Republicans war with Republicans. And all of them seem at odds with those of us in the hinterlands. Washington is getting like the Middle East without the beheadings.

Are the Founders’ at fault for government dysfunction? Garrett Epps thinks so. In an illogical piece in The Atlantic, Epps claims the Founders never anticipated a divided government. He wrote:

I’m trying to illustrate a dangerous weakness of our system, one that the Framers clearly did not foresee. Many of them believed there would not be political parties in the new system. Others no doubt thought that the government they had designed would consist of a Congress that met for a month or so every December and a president who would supervise a slumbering bureaucracy the rest of the year. Some of them assumed the president would be a passive figure, administering directions from Congress; others imagined a chief executive with some of the majesty of the king of England. I don’t think any of them anticipated that the two branches would ever clash over which represented "the will of the voters."

Epps teaches constitutional law at the University of Baltimore, but it seems he never got beyond grade school American history. (Actually, he probably knows better but hopes the rest of us have a cherry tree understanding of American history.)

First of all, none of the Founders owned a pair of rose colored glasses. These were hard core realists. Their entire design is based on placing guardrails around partisan combatants and tempering human frailty. Claiming the Founders never anticipated divided government is ignorant or disingenuous.

Historians estimate that about one third of the colonists supported a break with England, one third opposed it, and the remaining third kept their head down to avoid musket balls.  That’s pretty partisan. Jolly old Ben Franklin even became estranged from his son because they found themselves on opposite sides of the cause. Estranged is probably too light of a word since Franklin stopped G. Washington from setting his son free in a prisoner swap. Franklin and his son never forgave or forgot. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention knew ratification would be a ferocious battle, and before the convention was even over, took several actions to tilt the debate in their favor. And these men never anticipated partisanship and a divided government?

Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign that Changed America By Craig Shirley

Theodore White in his book In Search of History wrote, "Threading an idea into the slipstream of politics, then into government, then into history... is a craft which I have since come to consider the most important in the world." This was Ronald Reagan's gift ... and it is a rare gift indeed.

I grew up enthralled with Theodore White’s Making of the President series. Shirley’s book does not measure up to White, but that has more to do with White’s mastery than with Shirley’s shortcomings. With White no longer with us, I’m glad Shirley has picked up the mantle—at least for Ronald Reagan’s campaigns.

Liberty and Private Property

“The pillars of our prosperity are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.” Thomas Jefferson

The Founders were firm believers in private property rights.  In their minds, private property rights and liberty were intertwined.  Does this make sense?

Let’s go back to 1776.  At the time, we revolted against more than the British; we also revolted against Divine Right.  A short time earlier only nobility owned property and the great mass of humanity were serfs.  As this system withered, the common man developed property rights, and with property, gained political voice.  The Enlightenment preached that all men possessed God given rights, including the right to own property. By the second half of the eighteenth century, most British subjects equated property rights with liberty because they had seen that one followed the other.

In their view, prosperity and broad distribution of wealth depended on the protection of private property.  Even before the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Declaration of Rights led off with “all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which … namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property.”

James Madison said, “The government is instituted to protect property.”

Happy Constitution Day

And thank you Mr. James Madison—Father of the Constitution.

"The rights of man as the foundation of just Government had been long understood; but the superstructures projected had been sadly defective."

"[The Constitution of the United States] was not, like the fable Goddess of Wisdom, the offspring of a single brain.  It ought to be regarded as the work of many heads and many hands."

"The happy Union of these States is a wonder; their Constitution a miracle; their example the hope of Liberty throughout the world.  Woe to the ambition that would meditate the destruction of either!"

Slavery in the Constitution

If Founders believed in the Founding Principles, then they knew in their heart that slavery was the epitome of oppression. Slavery denied other humans the exercise of their liberty, which the Founders understood to be precious. Yet it was a slaveholder who wrote, “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

Slavery is a difficult issue in our nation’s history. The Founders, especially the Constitutional Framers, have received censure for not taking greater action against slavery. Some of the more prominent Founders are denigrated because they owned slaves. How can the Founders comments be reconciled with their actions? The answer is not simple.

Slavery at the Founding

At the time of the Constitutional Convention, slavery was illegal only in Massachusetts; more than two hundred slave ships regularly sailed out of New England; and over half of the wealth in the South comprised slaves. Both England and the North held a large amount of loans collateralized by slaves. In 1787, slavery was widespread, and a major element of the economy in both the South and the North.

Despite the position of slavery in 1787, many of the Founders believed slavery was already on its way to extinction. The slave trade had been made illegal in ten of the thirteen states. All thirteen states were seeing an increase in free blacks, especially in the North and the frontier areas of the South. Between 1775 and 1800, the number of free blacks in the nation increased from fourteen thousand to one hundred thousand. Virginia had passed legislation that freed slaves who served in the army or navy. In 1780, Quakers in Pennsylvania pressured the state legislature to pass a law declaring all children of slaves free. With the importation of additional slaves prohibited in most of the country, declining slave labor economics, and growing pressure to declare the newborn of slaves free, most of the Founders didn’t want to jeopardize the union over an institution that was already dying. For this reason, even staunch abolitionists like Benjamin Franklin only made peripheral swipes at slavery during the Constitutional Convention.

Author Interview: From Inception to Current Events

I ran across this Jumping in Pools interview from 2010, and it still reflects some good points about the creation of Tempest at Dawn and its relationship to current events. Here's a snippet:

"All of my writing had been highly technical, but storytelling has always fascinated me. Although I now write fiction, I had a bumpy start. I had to read piles of books on the art of fiction, hire a writing coach, and attend numerous workshops. Then I blundered around until I started to get the hang of it. It took years for me to shed the baggage that I had brought from the technical, non-fiction world. The main thing I had to learn was how to relay history and facts without interrupting the flow of the story. Much tougher than I expected."

 You can read the rest of the interview here...

The real story of our nations founding.

Commentary—Cabal Intent on Usurpation

Update: Virginia has now joined the National Popular Vote Compact.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill to join the National Popular Vote compact. This brings the total number of states adopting the initiative to eleven. The movement is an attempt by political power brokers to circumvent the Constitution by promising their state’s total presidential electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, instead of awarding the votes to the state winner.

Will your vote count?

As of now, New York, California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington have joined this insidious compact. In plain terms, this means that if Vermont citizens vote for candidate A, but candidate B wins the national popular vote, Vermont citizens are disenfranchised because Vermont’s electoral votes will all be awarded to candidate B.  

As the list of states indicates, this is a raw power grab by big city machine politicians. Under this compact, they will have the power to appoint the executive branch.

The Three Clauses That Have Caused Much Mischief

The Founders wanted to bequeath to posterity a straightforward government that inhibited the abuse of power. Their written words remain clear. Certain politicians and judges have skewed their meaning to do what they want, but most of the harm can be attributed to three clauses:

1.         The necessary and proper clause,

2.         The commerce clause, 

3.         And the general welfare clause.

It is nonsensical to assert that the Founders meant for any of these clauses to license general national authority.