25 more things about me

Focusing on things that I've not talked about - at least, not as extensively - in my previous "25 things about me" post

A review of PBS's “The Gold Rush”

The California Gold Rush is one of those events that tends to have been heard of by the public, but is often overlooked by popular historians today for a number of reasons,. Among them is that it is partially an economic story, and thus considered less "sexy" than the more "traditional" topics of politics and the military. Nonetheless, the Gold Rush is a monumental event in the history of America which had massive repercussions on the history of the West, causing the rapid colonization of California by White immigrants (and a handful of Chinese immigrants), and creating the ethnic mix that California is so known for today - since it is a race relations story as much as it is anything else, fraught with interest for anyone interested in American history. (But more on the particulars of that later.)

Sutter's Fort - California, 1849 (not to be confused with Sutter's Mill)

A review of Andrew Marr’s “Modern Britain” series (1901-2007)

I should preface this review with an up-front disclaimer, which is that I am not a citizen of Britain. I am an American citizen who has never been to the British Isles, and my ancestors haven't lived in Britain for more than a hundred years. Although I do have ancestors from various parts of the British Isles, who emigrated to the United States over a period of centuries (with some branches arriving at one time, and some branches at another). Thus, I have often felt rather British in my heritage; and this feeling is shared by many Americans of all ethnic origins, because of the cultural similarity between our two countries. (And I'm not just talking about our speaking the same language, although that does help. As George Bernard Shaw once joked, we are two countries "separated by a common language.")

Winston Churchill

The most controversial part of the original Constitution was … a LIST

"The essence of Government is power; and power lodged as it must be, in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."

- James Madison, in his Speech to the Virginia Convention on December 2, 1829

When the Founding Fathers were writing the Constitution in 1787, they attempted to list some of the powers that would be granted to the Congress. They knew that this list of powers was going to come under heavy fire when the document became public, and their opponents were sure to be up in arms about how much power they were proposing to grant to the federal government. (And this, as it turned out, is exactly what happened.)

Constitution of the United States

What was it about this list of powers that generated so much controversy during the struggle for ratification? Let us examine it below:

So what exactly are the “midterm elections,” anyway?

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six years, and each Senator shall have one vote."

- Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution (later changed by the Seventeenth Amendment from "chosen by the Legislature thereof" to "elected by the people thereof")

The Constitutional Convention, 1787

The elections for the president of the United States of America have always gotten more attention than any other in this country. This is not surprising, given that the presidency and vice presidency are the only offices that the entire country can vote on. As Alexander Hamilton once said, any individual serving as the president, "from the entire circumstance of his being alone, [is] more narrowly watched and more readily suspected" (Source: Federalist No. 70, with an alternative version saying "from the very circumstance of his being alone"). Your typical member of Congress can put the blame for their own actions on someone else, in other words - usually their fellow members of Congress - more easily than the president can, because they are not watched as closely as a single powerful individual (like the president) is. It is thus natural that the elections for the presidency (held every four years) would be watched more closely than any other elections.

Alexander Hamilton

Two-year term for the House of Representatives

Nonetheless, the elections for the United States Congress are still of importance to this country - as is testified by the part of the Constitution about the powers of the Congress (Article 1, Section 8, to be specific). Thus, these elections are held more frequently than the elections for the presidency are. The Constitution actually specifies a shorter term of two years for the members of the House of Representatives at the national level (Source: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution). This means that for this house of Congress, in practical terms, the whole lot of them are up for re-election every two years; and not just every four years (as it is for the presidency). I should note that half of these elections for Congress are held simultaneously with the presidential elections, with the ballot being the same one used to vote for the president. The other half of them are held at the midway point between the two presidential elections (hence the popular name that they have of the "midterm elections," since they're in the middle of the four-year term of the president). The next Congressional elections are during the presidential elections of 2024; so if you do want a say in who your Congressman or Congresswoman is, that time will be your next chance to get it.

Constitution of the United States of America

Aramaic: The OTHER Bible language

"Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."

- The Hebrew Bible, "The Book of Daniel," Chapter 3, Verses 16 through 18 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible) - one of the rare parts of the Hebrew Bible that was originally written in Aramaic, rather than Hebrew

I've talked to a number of Christians over the years who were surprised to learn that the New Testament was not originally written in Hebrew, but in Greek. This blows their mind, because people associate the Christian Bible's original language with Hebrew. This is understandable, because most of the Christian Bible really was written in Hebrew. The Old Testament (or "Hebrew Bible," if you prefer) was written almost exclusively in Hebrew - all but about 250 verses of it, which were originally written in Aramaic. Besides Hebrew and Greek, there is one other language for Christian scholars, who want to read the Christian Bible in the original. (And you thought your mind wasn't blown enough ... )

What the heck is Aramaic?

I can guess what most of you are probably thinking: "What the heck is Aramaic, and why did the authors of the Bible choose to write in it?" If the ancestral language of the Jews was Hebrew (and it was), why did the Jewish authors of what we today call the "Old Testament" not write everything in Hebrew?

Map of the Ancient Near East

So what exactly are the “Federalist Papers,” anyway?

"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

- Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 1)

Frequently Asked Questions about the “Federalist Papers”