How the British Empire was replaced by the British Commonwealth

“We refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”

– Balfour Declaration of 1926, issued by the 1926 Imperial Conference of British Empire leaders in London

British nations are hit hard in the Great War, a major turning point for the British Empire

Canada lost nearly 1% of its population in World War One, and Australia and New Zealand lost more than 1% of their respective populations therein. The British Isles themselves actually lost roughly 2% of the UK population during this infamous “Great War.” Small wonder, then, that the First World War was a turning point for the British Empire. I plan to cover the lead-up to the Great War elsewhere, so I will not try to attempt such coverage here. Thus, suffice it to say here that things exploded in 1914, when these various parts of the British Empire were all sucked into the conflict. The year 1914, specifically, is thus considered to be a major turning point for the British Empire. To some degree, even India and South Africa were affected by the carnage, although their death rates were somewhat lower than those listed above. Like the United States, these various portions of the British Empire would later send some troops to fight in the Russian Civil War as well, when the broader world war had ended. But these interventions ultimately failed, and communism was nonetheless instituted in Russia. In the negotiations for the postwar peace treaty, all of these portions of the British Empire were represented in the Allied delegation therein. These included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, and (of course) Britain itself. It was then acknowledged that groups like the Anzacs and the Canadians had fought very bravely alongside their comrades from the British Isles. Thus, it was felt that they, too, should have a place at the bargaining table there. This was an unofficial recognition of their status in the still-ongoing British Empire. During the war, the British Isles also saw the Irish rebellion of 1916. This soon led to the creation of the “Irish Free State,” which later became the “Republic of Ireland.” (More about that later.)

Australian troops at Gallipoli, circa 1915 – part of World War One

Irish soldiers at the Somme, 1916 – part of World War One

On the merits of using re-enactments in documentary films

Budgets are the bane of documentary filmmakers, as well as their biggest constraint

I’ve watched a few films by Elizabeth Deane, who has made a number of documentaries for PBS. In the special features for one of her films, she once lamented that “We have Hollywood ambitions, but we don’t have Hollywood budgets.” That sums up the primary problem with most re-enactments in the documentary world: they’re terribly low-budget. You’ve probably seen this kind of thing in your high school history class. Your teacher shows you a documentary film, and you see a couple of guys in period uniforms going across the screen in slow motion (isn’t that exciting). Even though it’s in color (and modern audiences love color), the kids are bored by the spartan quality of the re-enactments. In fairness, this is understandable for a generation that’s grown up on some expensive Hollywood re-enactments. Academy Awards have been won (and well-earned) by delivering high-quality re-enactments for a major historical movie. But the ones that we see in documentaries are seldom all that impressive – although they can sometimes still be helpful despite this.

History of Antarctica: From the earliest explorers to the 21st century

“Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. There shall be prohibited, inter alia, any measure of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military manoeuvres, as well as the testing of any type of weapon. The present Treaty shall not prevent the use of military personnel or equipment for scientific research or for any other peaceful purpose.”

– Article I of the Antarctic Treaty (1 December 1959)

The earliest Antarctic explorers, the first sighting of Antarctica, and the first landing there

As early as antiquity itself, it was postulated that there was a vast continent (then called “Terra Australis”) in the far south of the globe. It was actually in the second century AD that Marinus of Tyre coined the term “Antarctic,” which basically means “opposite of the Arctic Circle.” As Wikipedia puts it, “The rounding of the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn in the 15th and 16th centuries proved that Terra Australis Incognita (‘Unknown Southern Land’), if it existed, was a continent in its own right. In 1773, James Cook and his crew crossed the Antarctic Circle for the first time. Although he discovered new islands, he did not sight the continent itself. It is believed that he came as close as 240 km (150 mi) from the mainland.” (Source: Their page on the “History of Antarctica”) In January 1820, there was a Russian expedition, which was led by Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen and Mikhail Lazarev. Due to the number of birds flying there, he believed that land must be close. But it was not until ten months later that the continent itself was finally sighted. On 17 November 1820, an American sealer named Nathaniel Palmer became the first to sight Antarctica. It may have been over a year later that an English-born American captain named John Davis, another sealer, set foot on the ice. It was the first landing on the continent of Antarctica.

Russian admiral Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen, who led an early expedition in the region

A review of “Baruch Spinoza” (audiobook)

In 1656, Baruch Spinoza was excommunicated, from the Jewish community into which he was born. He had taught some doctrines that offended the Jewish elders – and so was punished with ostracism, exile, and various “curses” (as they saw it). Nonetheless, he is now seen as one of the most important Jewish philosophers of the “Age of Enlightenment.” He has often been admired by various poets and romantics, as well as by scientists like Albert Einstein. Why is this? Who is Baruch Spinoza, and what were his contributions? These are the questions addressed by the audiobook that I’m here undertaking to review.

Philosophy posts by time, place, and topic

Here is a sort of “table of contents” for my philosophical posts:

By philosophical topics:

Philosophy generally

Political philosophy specifically

Ethics and morality

Economics

By audiobook topics:

Political thought audiobooks

Philosophy audiobooks

Economic thought audiobooks

Investment audiobooks

Religions audiobooks

Science & discovery audiobooks

American history audiobooks

By periods:

Ancient philosophy (see Ancient Greek philosophy)

Medieval philosophy (see the Middle Ages)

Renaissance philosophy (see the Renaissance)

17th century philosophy (see also 17th century and Enlightenment philosophy)

18th century philosophy (see also 18th century and Enlightenment philosophy)

19th century philosophy (see also 19th century)

20th century philosophy (see also 20th century)

21st century philosophy

By geographic regions:

Ancient Greek philosophy

Roman philosophy (see Italian philosophy)

British philosophy

French philosophy

German philosophy

Italian philosophy

American philosophy (see also the Constitution)

Eastern philosophy

By religions:

Religions generally

Jewish history

Christian history

Muslim history

Eastern religions

By political and economic systems:

Fascism

Communism

Marxism

Socialism

Democracy (see the Constitution)

Free markets

In defense of Western culture (and our Western heritage)

“Ipsa scientia potestas est.” (“Knowledge itself is power.”)

– Francis Bacon, in his “Meditationes Sacrae” (1597), with the quotation often shortened to “Scientia potestas est” (“Knowledge is power”)

People today are inclined to reject Western culture, absolutely and indiscriminately. But I believe that it is still relevant today. In particular, there is a Western heritage of free inquiry and pursuit of truth. This is the aspect of Western culture that I will most focus on today.

Francis Bacon

Of course, rationality has been found in all cultures, past and present – and one could argue that the earliest science came to us from Mesopotamia. But it made particularly great advances among the Ancient Greeks – famous for their early philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. The Ancient Greeks also produced some great mathematicians and scientists, who advanced our understanding of nature. The greatest city-state among the Ancient Greeks was Athens, now famous as the birthplace of democracy. Thus, the name “Athens” has sometimes been used as a metaphor to describe the Western heritage of free inquiry and rational thinking. I recognize that the word “rationality” has sometimes been used to describe reason in contrast with the empirical evidence of one’s senses. But, in this post, I will generally use the term “rationality” to include both logic and empirical evidence, both of which are foundational to doing valid science.

Constantine, the first Roman emperor to embrace Christianity

A review of “World War I” (audiobook)

I should preface this review by saying that I’ve examined a number of other histories of World War One. For example, I watched PBS’s 6-hour series “The Great War,” made for their American Experience series. And, as you might expect from this, PBS does indeed focus on the American experience of this great conflict. Prior parts of the conflict are therein discussed mainly through the experiences of American soldiers, who enlisted in various European armies. I’ve also watched CBS’s 10-hour series “World War One,” made back in 1964. Thankfully, CBS gives a pretty decent overview of the war, although they do have a disproportionate focus on the American experience of that war. And, most importantly, I saw the BBC’s 17-hour series “The Great War,” also made in 1964. This latter series even interviewed some of the veterans of that war. Thus, this is the best television overview of the war. It may even be one of the finest military history documentaries ever made. Thus, I’ve seen a number of other histories of World War One.

Spies, nukes, and communists: The complicated legacy of the Cold War

The Cold War affected both sides of the twentieth century’s greatest conflict, in every region of the world. These included largely neutral areas stretching from Latin America and the Middle East … to South Asia and Indonesia. Some of the ripple effects come from the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the establishment of the modern state of Israel, and the conflicts between Israel and its various neighbors. All have since become particularly relevant at the time that I write this. The Eastern European theater of the Cold War also explains some of the more recent conflicts in the region, such as the nineties war in Bosnia and the current war in Ukraine. Many Eastern European countries have since joined the European Union, which could likewise be considered as a sort of legacy of the Cold War period. The Cold War also influenced literature and cinema, with iconic spy movies like those of James Bond – which were popular enough to be spoofed in other franchises like “Get Smart.” There were also some post-apocalyptic themes in the era’s science fiction, including with some famous episodes of “The Twilight Zone.”

Goran Jelisić shooting a Bosniak in Brčko – Bosnian War, 1992

But the Cold War also had an effect upon our current world map, our current ideologies, and (in many ways) our current geopolitics. It involved some spilled blood in many parts of the world, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the rise of communist China as a world power. The glory of twentieth-century history tends to go to World War II, which arguably set the stage for the Cold War in many ways. But the Cold War may still be the most important conflict of the twentieth century. Only certain parts of the Cold War involved actual shooting therein, but there was scarcely a conflict anywhere in the world during that time that wasn’t somehow connected with the larger “Cold War.” Thus, this post will try to examine how the (First) Cold War affected us, and how we continue to deal with the ripple effects (of one sort or another) from this great international chess game. I will only be able to survey the ways that it affected us, and will have to leave out subjects like the important advances in computer technology and air power – even though they, too, are arguably an outgrowth of the “Cold War.”

A street in Kyiv following Russian missile strikes – Ukraine, 2022

Why the British remain our most important allies

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world … Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”

– George Washington (then the President of the United States), in his 1796 “Farewell Address”

On April 19th, 1775, shots were exchanged at Lexington and Concord, beginning America’s war for independence from Great Britain. The following year, the thirteen American colonies declared their independence from the mother country in 1776, with the British recognition of this independence coming some years later in 1783. The United States would again fight against the British Empire, in the American “War of 1812” – which actually ended in 1815. Britain would again contemplate a war with the United States during the later American Civil War – although, fortunately, this was narrowly averted by the Abraham Lincoln administration. (More about that here.) Thus, relations between the United States and the British Empire have not always been so amicable. In both of these wars, we had been allied with France, even though we had also fought the intervening Quasi-War with the French on the high seas. Later on, America was allied with both the British and the French, during the First and Second World Wars. Which of these two nations, if any, is our greatest ally? This is the question that I will focus on today.

Battle of New Orleans, 1815 – the last major battle between the British and the Americans

FDR and Churchill aboard the HMS Prince of Wales – Atlantic Charter, 1941

The War of the Austrian Succession was fought on four different continents

Note: The “War of the Austrian Succession” included several different conflicts within it. Thus, many of my blog’s mentions of these related conflicts are instead directed to this post, which helps to put many of these conflicts (and sub-conflicts) into context.

Anecdote about the “War of Jenkins’ Ear,” and how that conflict got its strange name

In 1731, a British ship called the “Rebecca” was stopped by a Spanish ship. As Wikipedia puts it, “Under the 1729 Treaty of Seville, the Spanish were allowed to check British vessels trading with the Americas for contraband.” (see source) Thus, the Spaniards searched the ship thoroughly, and found that it was indeed carrying smuggled sugar. The captain of the “Rebecca” was a man named Robert Jenkins. Captain Jenkins later alleged that, during this incident, the Spaniards had removed part of his ear. The British government was then looking for a pretext for a war against Spain. Thus, they brought Captain Jenkins into Parliament, as evidence that his ear had been cut off by Spanish officials. But Captain Jenkins was wearing a cap, which concealed how many ears he had. Moreover, Captain Jenkins was never forced to remove this cap. Thus, there was a suspicion that, underneath his cap, there were two perfectly normal ears – each of which was firmly attached to his head in the normal way. But the war seemed too desirable to the British to bother with such “trivialities” as verification of the story. Thus, the “War of Jenkins’ Ear” soon began in 1739. This may be among the strangest names ever given to any conflict in history. The majority of the conflict took place in New Granada and the Caribbean Sea. However, it would also involve some fighting in Havana, Cuba – and in Central America, at a city called Cartagena (not to be confused with the city back in Spain). North America would also see some related fighting in Spanish Florida and British Georgia, which was part of the “War of Jenkins’ Ear.” This would later become a part (arguably) of the “War of the Austrian Succession.”

Capture of Portobelo (Central America, 1739) – part of the “War of Jenkins’ Ear”

Battle of Havana (Cuba, 1748) – another part of the “War of Jenkins’ Ear”

Margaret Thatcher and the free-market revival in Britain

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

– Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher was the first woman to become the prime minister of the United Kingdom. She was also the country’s longest-serving prime minister in the twentieth century. But she is known more for her conservative leadership, particularly in her fiscal conservatism and tough foreign policy. Decades’ worth of socialism in Britain came to a halt in Margaret Thatcher’s economic revolution. The socialism would later return with a vengeance, but she did temporarily return Britain to the free-market principles of the Scottish economist Adam Smith. She would briefly fight a war in the Falklands – one of the few sources of friction in her relationship with Ronald Reagan. (The other was Ronald Reagan’s deploying troops to Grenada, which still had Queen Elizabeth the Second as its nominal monarch.) Overall, though, Thatcher’s relationship with Ronald Reagan would be a good one, and is rightly remembered fondly in both nations. The two leaders also helped to turn the tide of the Cold War in the free world’s favor, as the Berlin Wall fell during Margaret Thatcher’s tenure. The year after Thatcher left office, the Soviet Union would collapse entirely in 1991.

Margaret Thatcher

Curious academic fads: Multiculturalism, postcolonialism, and cultural relativism

“What ‘multiculturalism’ boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture – and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.”

– Thomas Sowell, economist

The fads of twenty-first-century philosophy may be almost as bad as their names …

The fads of twenty-first-century philosophy may be almost as bad as their names. Many a bad idea has been made to sound better, by simply throwing “-ism” onto the end of a good buzzword. Although I find most postmodern writing to be intolerably bad, I should concede that by the simple addition of an “-ism,” some of their ideas can be made to sound deep and intellectual. The words with several syllables seem to conceal a certain kind of emptiness in their ideas, with the quality of the words seldom matching their intimidating quantity. But the influence of these ideas is far too prevalent for them to just be dismissed out of hand. It has been said that nutty ideas in academia will soon find their way into the broader society, about five years after their appearance in the ivory tower. Thus, the various offshoots of postmodernism have gained a foothold in everyday life far beyond their academic origins. I plan to deal with postmodernism proper (however one defines it) in another post. Thus, I will not attempt to deal with the original postmodern ideas in this post. Rather, I will here be undertaking to cover certain offshoots of postmodernism, such as multiculturalism and postcolonialism. It seems correct to identify these as offshoots of postmodernism. I will also talk somewhat here about moral relativism and cultural relativism, and how they fit into this broader postmodern picture.

Africans serving in the armies of European colonial powers – German East Africa, circa 1906

A review of “Gandhi” (1982 movie with Ben Kingsley)

“The government of the territories now in the possession or under the government of the [British] East India Company, and all powers in relation to government vested in or exercised by the said Company in trust for Her Majesty [then Queen Victoria], shall cease to be vested in or exercised by the said Company, and all territories in the possession or under the government of the said Company, and all rights vested in or which if this act had not been passed might have been exercised by the said Company in relation to any territories, shall become vested in Her Majesty [Queen Victoria], and be exercised in her name …”

– “Government of India Act 1858,” as passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (incidentally, India had then been ruled by the British East India Company since the 1757 Battle of Plassey – which was more than a century earlier than this act)

India owes its independence from the British Empire to people like Mahatma Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi was able to free India from British rule, without the nation suffering anything like a full-scale war. There was some amount of violence therein on both sides, but it surely would have been much bloodier without the steadfast efforts of people like Mr. Gandhi. India had actually been ruled by the British since the 1757 Battle of Plassey. Starting in that year, they would now be ruled by a private corporation: the British East India Company. (More about that company in a later post.) But, in 1857 (nearly a century after that battle), the locals had fought a war to free India from the now-notorious rule of that company. This revolt is known by various names – from the Indian Rebellion, to the “Indian Mutiny” (a British name), to the “Sepoy” Rebellion (a local Indian name). Incidentally, the term “Sepoy” refers to a type of Indian infantryman. But, whatever one calls the uprising, the rebellion was soon crushed in 1858. This was more than a decade before Mr. Gandhi’s birth. Thus, that revolt had failed to free India from British rule. But, significantly, the rebellion did change which of the British institutions would now get to control India. That is, control passed from the British East India Company to the British Crown. Thus, Queen Victoria would now have direct control over India. This was the situation in India, when Mr. Gandhi was born there. Specifically, Mohandas K. Gandhi was born in 1869 – the year that the Suez Canal opened in Egypt. The Suez Canal (eventually) would also be controlled by the British Empire, making it easier for the British to send their troops to India. This was because British ships no longer had to go around Africa, but could take a shortcut through the Suez Canal in Egypt. (But that’s a subject for another post.) Regardless, these things would affect the relationship between Britain and its distant colony in India. Gandhi actually spent the earliest years of his life in India. But, in his mid-twenties, he would instead set sail for South Africa in 1893 – which, at that time, was yet another province of the British Empire. This is where the Ben Kingsley movie “Gandhi” begins.

A review of Ric Burns’ “New York: A Documentary History”

“Whereupon the Citty and Fort Amsterdam and Province of the New Netherlands were surrendered under His Most Exct. Mat’s. Obedience, made and concluded the 27th. day of September 1664.”

– “Articles of Capitulation on the Reduction of New Netherland,” better known as the “Articles of Surrender of New Netherland” (signed on the 29th of September 1664) – the document that transformed the Dutch-speaking “New Amsterdam” into the English-speaking “New York City”

A television history of New York City, the largest city in the United States

It is the great paradox of New York City. On the one hand, it is a historic city, where many great historical events have taken place. But, on the other hand, very little of it looks anything like it once did. Most cities have made inroads upon the local environment, turning natural wildernesses into sprawling urban landscapes. But even the more urban landmarks of New York City are often destroyed, to build something else in their place. And, on a different note, the city’s history is, in many ways, a microcosm of the larger history of the United States. In the history of this one city, you see conflict between different groups – between long-standing families and relatively recent immigrants. You see conflict between management and labor, between city and state concerns, and between local and national concerns. And you see national economic trends realized on the local level – from the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era, to the “Roaring Twenties” and the Great Depression. Most of the greatest conflicts of American history can, to some degree, be seen here in the history of this one city. Thus, PBS gave filmmaker Ric Burns the green light … to produce a television history of the city. In the DVD set that I’ve been watching, I have seen 17 hours of great storytelling. They cover the city’s initial seventeenth-century colonization by the Dutch to the 9/11 terrorist attacks of 2001 – and beyond! It is an engrossing yarn, and might merit a brief overview in this blog post.

New Amsterdam in 1664 – the predecessor of New York City

USA spies: From the American Revolution to the Civil War

“Therefore no one in the armed forces is treated as familiarly as are spies, no one is given rewards as rich as those given to spies, and no matter is more secret than espionage.”

– Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” (5th century BC China), Chapter 13 (as translated by Thomas Cleary)

Information traveled slowly in those days, at the speed of a horse or a sailing ship

Sun Tzu reminds us that spies have been around since antiquity. In the Peloponnesian Wars of Ancient Greece, for example, Alcibiades betrayed Athens to Sparta, then defected to the Persian side, and then returned to Athens. This high-profile treason had a way of making him a little unpopular in certain quarters, to say the least. But most of the glory of espionage tends to go to the later Cold War period of the twentieth century. The latter period has been the subject of movies like “Breach,” “Bridge of Spies,” and (of course) the “James Bond” franchise. We may thus tend to associate spies with high-tech methods, like hacking and computer encryption. But most of the spies in history were somewhat lower-tech, and the embarrassing government secrets could travel no faster than the speed of a horse. And, during the American Revolution, London and Paris were way across the ocean from the critical campaigns in North America. Thus, it could take months for important information to sail across the Atlantic. The news of the American victory at Saratoga took several months to bring France into the war, delaying the all-important French assistance to the outnumbered (and badly outgunned) American rebels.

British surrender at Saratoga, 1777

Some information in this post was once top-secret, while the rest is largely forgotten

But the spy conflicts of the early United States are largely forgotten today. We hear much about the American Revolution and the Civil War in school, but we don’t hear too many stories about the important spies in our earliest conflicts. This is understandable, because the discussions of these wars usually have to focus upon the politics involved therein – and, of course, upon the many battles themselves. But the spy stories of these wars seem to have all the drama of more modern spy conflicts. They have all of the human interest, all of the juicy scandals, and all of the broader strategic importance. Specifically, the spies therein had a great effect on how these wars ultimately played out. Thus, this might be a good time to talk about a few of the spies in America’s earliest conflicts. Some of the information herein was once top-secret. The rest is largely forgotten to the public. But these details tell a story about how the military secrets of both sides were either protected, or (more embarrassingly) leaked – sometimes with catastrophic consequences, for the one side or the other.

Paul Revere’s ride

Piracy played a role, early in the “Second” Hundred Years’ War

“When I was a boy, there was but one permanent ambition among my comrades in our village [Hannibal, Missouri] on the west bank of the Mississippi River. That was, to be a steamboatman. We had transient ambitions of other sorts, but they were only transient. When a circus came and went, it left us all burning to become clowns … now and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates.”

– Mark Twain, in “Life in the Mississippi” (1883), Chapter 4

Those pirate movies that you watched as a kid … probably took place during this period

In 2003, Disney released the first installment in their “Pirates of the Caribbean” film franchise. The film must have seemed a little risky, because there had not been a popular pirate movie for some years by that point. But, to everyone’s surprise, the film franchise did quite well at the box office, and in the later home movie sales as well. Other pirate movies (such as “Treasure Island”) have likewise captured the public imagination. As “Peter Pan” reminds us, pirates are a popular subject, especially with children. In “Life on the Mississippi,” Mark Twain once said that “we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates” (as cited above). Obviously, the reality of piracy is a little less romantic, since pirates tended to be as violent and bloodthirsty as they’re usually portrayed to be. But, in some ways, the reality may be just as interesting as its depiction in these great movies. Today, I’d like to examine the role of piracy, during the aptly-named “Golden Age of Piracy.” This was the period when piracy became a significant factor in both the North Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. I should clarify that the term “Golden Age” is not meant to “approve” of the brazen theft that this piracy inherently involves. But, from the pirates’ point of view, it was indeed a “Golden Age,” where the world’s maritime trade was relatively vulnerable to their attacks. I will focus primarily on how it affected some of the major international wars of the period, particularly on the high seas. Indeed, it seems hard to discuss either the piracy or the wars in total isolation from each other. Specifically, I will start by talking about the three main Anglo-Dutch Wars, which were mostly at sea. Then I will focus on the naval parts of three other great European conflicts. These are (in order): the Nine Years’ War, the War of the Spanish Succession, and the War of the Austrian Succession. These three conflicts, along with four others that soon followed them, would eventually be grouped together into the broader term of “Second” Hundred Years’ War. Piracy and privateering played a major role, in the early parts of this much-larger conflict.

Spanish Men-of-War Engaging Barbary Corsairs, 1615

My deep and abiding love of the Constitution

“The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.”

– Preamble to the 1780 Constitution of Massachusetts, written principally by John Adams in 1779

With regards to the Constitution, I count my journey as beginning in elementary school

When I was a kid, I read an illustrated children’s book about the American Revolution (shown below). This was the beginning of a lifelong interest in the American Revolution. But, although I didn’t know it then, this would eventually lead me to read the American State Papers – such as the Declaration of Independence and the (federal) Constitution. It would eventually lead me to study them in greater depth – and, particularly, the various influences on the United States Constitution. This would eventually become one of the ruling passions of my life. I count the journey as beginning in elementary school. I also remember an elementary-school teacher instructing us about the concepts of both separation of powers and checks & balances. But it was in middle school that I took my first civics class, and had my first real encounter with the Constitution.

An illustrated children’s book about the American Revolution

The Latin American wars of independence were followed by … more wars?

The Napoleonic Wars sparked some serious wars of independence throughout Latin America. One portion of Spanish America after another became independent from Spain, and Brazil likewise became independent from Portugal. During these wars, the United States declared its “Monroe Doctrine,” pledging to keep European nations from making any additional encroachments into the New World. But, despite the American “Monroe Doctrine,” European nations continued to interfere in Latin America, even after the Spanish and the Portuguese had officially been kicked out of their former colonies. The Brazilian War of Independence would end in 1824, and the Spanish American wars of independence would finally end in 1833. But the remaining portions of the nineteenth century saw further wars in Latin America. Commercial considerations kept European powers in the picture there, although the distances continued to create some logistical challenges for the faraway Europeans. This post will focus specifically on the wars in South America, and how they rocked the continent in the post-independence parts of the nineteenth century. It is a story of distant empires interfering in local politics, and even of conflicts with similar cultures that were much closer to home on the continent.

The Chincha Islands of Peru being occupied by Spanish sailors, 1864

In defense of the Ancient Greeks and Romans

“In the most pure democracies of Greece, many of the executive functions were performed, not by the people themselves, but by officers elected by the people, and REPRESENTING the people in their EXECUTIVE capacity … Prior to the reform of Solon, Athens was governed by nine Archons, annually ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AT LARGE. The degree of power delegated to them seems to be left in great obscurity. Subsequent to that period, we find an assembly, first of four, and afterwards of six hundred members, annually ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE; and PARTIALLY representing them in their LEGISLATIVE capacity, since they were not only associated with the people in the function of making laws, but had the exclusive right of originating legislative propositions to the people.”

– Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 63)

Western culture now seems to be falling out of fashion today. People understandably want to praise the other cultures of the world, and note that they made significant contributions to the arts, sciences, and philosophy. They thus feel that we somehow have to downgrade the contributions of the West. They seem to feel that elevating other cultures requires us to knock Western culture off of its pedestal – a problematic proposition. The legacy of the Ancient Greeks and Romans is one of the casualties of this problematic way of thinking. The Ancient Greeks and Romans may have been “great,” say others, but they were just two cultures among many – and they were no more “great” than any other cultures, says this group. They may have been “special,” this group admits, but all cultures are “special” – depriving this word of any real meaning.

The Pnyx in Greece, the meeting place of the people of Athens

So what did the Ancient Greeks and Romans really leave us, you might be wondering? Oh, nothing much: just democracy … and maybe a few other important things. This post will try to explain why the Ancient Greeks and Romans were different. I should note that, to my knowledge, I don’t have a single drop of Greek or Italian blood in me. Thus, to me, this is not about genetics or “privileged bloodlines.” Rather, I see this as being about ideas – with freedom, possibly, being the very greatest of those classical ideas. By creating popular government, the Ancient Greeks and Romans both left us a legacy of free inquiry and pursuit of truth. To me, that is their greatest legacy. It needs to be remembered today, and it needs to be reverently (and thoughtfully) taught today.

The “Forum Romanum,” better known as the Roman Forum