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 Pynx 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

How psychology became a separate discipline

Disclaimer: I am writing here as a philosopher and as a historian, not as a psychologist. That is, I freely admit that I am not an “expert” in psychology, although I do have some minimal exposure to the subject. My intent here is only to show how psychology fits into the broader history of philosophy, by talking about how psychology became a separate discipline in the last two centuries.

Psychology has long been one of the most popular majors in the United States. By some measurements, it is second only to business in its popularity among college students. And it’s easy to see why the subject is so popular. It has a strong human interest element, and helps you to understand all kinds of human behavior. Classes focused on psychological disorders are often so popular that there are waitlists to get into them. Many want to enter the mental health professions, and use their training to help people in the most personal way. And it has long drawn students interested in the scientific side of things, who want to do research – or, at least, to benefit from the prior research of others. But psychology as we know it has only been around since 1879, when Wilhelm Wundt’s Laboratory was founded in Leipzig. And the discipline has many predecessors from back in antiquity, in various attempts to make a distinction between the mind and the body.

Wilhelm Wundt

Great naval conflicts: From the Seven Years’ War to the Napoleonic Wars

Many pirate movies take place in this general time period, and so do many history movies

I grew up on pirate movies like “Treasure Island,” a classic story that takes place in the early eighteenth century. Most modern pirate movies seem to take place in this much-romanticized era of sailing ships and pirates. In this century, we have seen Disney’s fantasy-oriented “Pirates of the Caribbean,” which combines this eighteenth-century historical backdrop with elements of curses and magic. But there have also been more “serious” works of historical fiction, about the naval conflicts of the late eighteenth (and early nineteenth) centuries. For example, there has been the “Horatio Hornblower” franchise (with a TV series starring Ioan Gruffudd), and the Russell Crowe movie “Master and Commander.” (Pity that only one movie was made in that particular franchise, because it was a promising one.) These movies may have some fictional characters in them, along with references to real people like Lord Horatio Nelson. But they may still be “serious” historical movies anyway, in my opinion, since they dramatize the fighting at sea during the Napoleonic Wars.

The wars covered here were all part of a broader struggle between Britain and France

I’m much interested in the naval fighting of the Napoleonic Wars, in part because of the influence of these movies on me personally. But, today, I would like to look at naval fighting in the eighteenth century more generally. The Napoleonic Wars are traditionally dated to the early nineteenth century, and I promise the reader that I will also be giving some serious coverage of that conflict in this post. But, in order to understand the Napoleonic Wars themselves, one has to look at some prior conflicts in the eighteenth century. Most importantly, one has to look at the much broader struggle between Britain and France, and how they duked it out in one maritime conflict after another. Our story begins in 1754, with a frontier conflict in the distant European colonies of North America. Americans today remember it as the “French and Indian War,” but it would soon lead to the broader “Seven Years’ War,” and to many another great naval conflict for the Europeans.

Why you should be concerned about postmodernism

I have long had a fair number of friends who identify as “Marxist” or “socialist.” But I freely admit that relatively few of my friends have described themselves to me as “postmodern” or “postmodernist.” Chances are that your experience is much the same. That is, you probably don’t know too many people who identify themselves as “postmodern” or “postmodernist.” But, if we undertake to define what “postmodernism” is, we may find that we have a fair number of friends who fit this description. We may find that postmodern ideas underlie many other belief systems – from transgender ideology and identity politics, to feminism and critical race theory. We may thus find that a fair number of our friends are influenced, in one way or another, by various postmodern ideas. And, if we take the trouble to examine these ideas carefully, we may see that they cannot stand up to serious intellectual scrutiny. Postmodernism is (and remains) intellectually bankrupt. Thus, it may be worth the time to define this philosophy, then to gauge its prevalence, and finally to take the trouble to debunk it. Perhaps, then, we will be better able to arrive at philosophical truth.

Richard Rorty, postmodern philosopher

Learning the basics of Biblical Hebrew from a book

“Our knowledge of Biblical Hebrew is directly dependent upon Jewish oral tradition and thus on the state of that tradition during and following the various dispersions of the Jews from Palestine. This dependence arises from the peculiarly deficient orthography in which the biblical text was written: it is essentially vowelless, or at most, vocalically ambiguous (see below, §8). The actual pronunciation of the language was handed down orally … The written consonantal text itself achieved a final authoritative form around the end of the first century A. D.”

– The introduction to Thomas O. Lambdin’s “Introduction to Biblical Hebrew” (1971), pages xiii-xiv

For nearly three years, I have read Thomas O. Lambdin’s “Introduction to Biblical Hebrew” – some 284 pages of it. Specifically, I read it from 14 August 2022 through 25 July 2025, at which time I completely finished it – excepting the appendices, index, and the entirety of the glossaries (although I read many parts of these glossaries). I did this completely from a book, and never had the benefit of a classroom, a professor, or a native speaker – or even a recording of one, for that matter! I’ve never heard so much as one hour of audio of the language, even from non-native speakers, and this made it somewhat daunting at times. It may have increased the difficulty level in at least some ways, and I don’t recommend it to others unless other options are not available (as they were not for me).

Why I believe that critical race theory is unscientific

Scientific theories must be testable. But if both results are believed to “prove” one right …

Suppose I told you that something really crazy happened last night. Specifically, at midnight last night, everything in the universe “shrank to one-half its original dimensions.” If you were to get a yardstick, you’d see that the size of certain nearby objects has changed in the manner claimed. If so, then that would prove me right. But, if the yardstick appeared to show that the size was the same as before, then it’s because the yardstick also “shrank” as well. Thus, my hypothesis has still not been disproved – in fact, it gets “proved” either way! If you test something scientifically, then this has to be “valid” science, after all. To get a “valid” scientific hypothesis, all you have to do is to test that hypothesis, right? I mean, that’s “all” that’s required for something to be scientific.

… then it’s still not science, because there has to be some possible result that could prove it wrong

The problem with this argument is that testability alone is not sufficient. The hypothesis also has to be falsifiable. That is, you have to be able to conceive of a scenario where your hypothesis could be proven false – that is, where it could be “falsified.” If you believe that either of two opposite results would “prove” your own point of view, then you’re still not doing science. Your hypothesis may still be testable, but the test is unscientific, because its advocates cannot conceive of a result that disproves the hypothesis by their own standards. If you’re trying to determine which of two movies is “inherently better,” this kind of thing doesn’t have to be scientific. Subjective claims like this are allowed to be unscientific – not to be confused with being anti-scientific, which means something else. The problems come when theories that are not scientific are claiming to be such, like the earlier claim about the universe shrinking. This is a different kind of claim from one movie being “inherently better” than the other. The shrinking-universe hypothesis claims to be objective, and thus crosses the line into the territory of pseudoscience. The shrinking-universe hypothesis is much more deserving of censure than those theories that never claimed to be “scientific” in the first place. When you claim to be “scientific,” you need to be able to back up this claim.

The “French Revolutionary Wars”: A great European cataclysm

“Do you hear in the fields

The howling of those fearsome soldiers?

They are coming into your midst

To slit the throats of your sons and consorts.

To arms, citizens!

Form up your battalions!

Let’s march, let’s march!

May impure blood soak our fields’ furrows!”

– English translation of “La Marseillaise” (1792), originally written in French during the French Revolution – now used as the national anthem of France

The French Revolution sucked much of Europe into a decade of bitter warfare

In 1789, a French mob stormed the Bastille on the 14th of July. This is the most famous date of the French Revolution, with its anniversary today celebrated in France as “Bastille Day.” This is actually the national holiday of France today, much as “Independence Day” is the national holiday of the United States. But there’s more to the story than this domestic revolution, although that is a critically important part of it. The French Revolution also sucked much of Europe into a decade of bitter warfare. The later years of the French Revolution were thus set against the backdrop of warfare. That is, there was an overlap between the later “French Revolution” and the early “French Revolutionary Wars.” This post will cover the often-forgotten conflicts that were associated with the French Revolution. I have saved my coverage of the Napoleonic Wars for another post, even though these two topics are intimately connected. Thus, I will instead be focusing here on the “French Revolutionary Wars,” which lasted for ten years in all. In so many ways, they were a great European cataclysm.

Storming of the Bastille, 1789

Gerald Ford: Owing his presidency to the Twenty-Fifth Amendment

“In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take the office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress.”

– Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1967), Sections 1 and 2

In 1974, Richard Nixon became the first president in American history to resign from office. He said that “Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office.” (Source: Speech given in the Oval Office, 8 August 1974) This means that Gerald Ford is the only person to become president following a resignation. He was also the first (and, so, far, the only) person to become president, via any portion of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. In his case, it was two portions. And, as often noted, he was also the first (and, so far, the only) person who was never elected as either president or vice president, but who still became president anyway. He served out the remainder of Richard Nixon’s last term, and succeeded in getting his party’s nomination in 1976. But he was still defeated that year, and was never elected to a presidential term of his own.

Gerald Ford

In defense of the American Founding Fathers

“And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

– The United States Declaration of Independence (July 4th, 1776)

In recent decades, our Founding Fathers have been the target of some bitter revisionist attacks. For example, many cannot forgive them for being slaveholders. Many cannot forgive them for infringing on Native American lands, or their “failure” to give women the right to vote – as though that would have been possible in the eighteenth century (which it clearly wasn’t). Racism, sexism, and any number of other modern charges are leveled at the Founding Fathers. In short, the Founding Fathers are judged by various modern standards – which is always a mistake. Things that today are an accomplished fact were, in their own time, completely unattainable. The pace of progress is usually slow, and some problems can only be fixed after several generations have passed. Thus, in the larger perspective of history, the progress in the Founding Fathers’ time was actually astonishingly fast, and more than anyone in that time would have dreamt possible. It is true that our Founding Fathers had some very real flaws, but the revisionist arguments about them seem to have even greater flaws. Few of those who make these arguments have ever studied the Founding Fathers’ actual ideas in any sort of depth. Thus, an examination of the Founding Fathers’ ideas would seem appropriate here, to show that their ideas have actually aged remarkably well. Their ideas can withstand the most vigorous scrutiny, and remain quite relevant … all these years later.

George Mason, one of our lesser-known Founding Fathers

In defense of the United States of America

“Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.”

– Abraham Lincoln, in his “Address before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield” (27 January 1838)

In 1776, the United States rightly declares that “all men are created equal”

On a warm summer day in 1776, the Continental Congress declared: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.” (Source: Declaration of Independence, 1776) It has often been noted that the man who wrote these words was a Virginia slaveholder named Thomas Jefferson. Clearly, the promise of equality had not yet been realized when he wrote these words, even in his own household. There was much to do in the coming decades to give these words a fuller meaning. But people have rightly looked to these words as a “promised beginning.” We made a promise that, one day, all men (and also women) in this country would see legal recognition of their equality. Some interpret this to mean that all of us must have equal wealth, or equal income, or equal status of some other kind. If so, then the promised equality could never be realized, because there will always be people who succeed, and there will always be others who desperately struggle to make ends meet. No utopian scheme ever proposed for ending poverty has ever yet been brought to pass, despite fervent efforts to implement such schemes. Whether or not these schemes bring any actual progress … may be a better topic for another post. But the Founding Fathers did create a “land of the free, [and] home of the brave.” They created a land of opportunity, where one could rise through industry and honest toil. And they created equality of opportunity, arguably the kind of equality that was meant to be enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

John Trumbull’s “Declaration of Independence”