A review of Huw Edwards' “The Story of Wales”

“ … That [the] said Country or Dominion of Wales shall be, stand and continue for ever from henceforth incorporated, united and annexed to and with this Realm of England … ”

– “Laws in Wales Act of 1535,” an act passed by the Parliament of England

If you've ever looked for “The Story of Wales” on DVD, you've probably discovered that it's somewhat pricey. Fellow Americans would be lucky to get a copy of it for less than $100 of our own currency. But in my opinion, the benefits may be well worth it; if you're into British history as I am, and if you have British ancestors as I do. My ancestors are from all over the place, actually, and my family tree includes some branches from Wales. But I also have ancestry from Scotland, Ireland, and England as well as Wales. Thus, I have ancestors from all over the British Isles. As you may have gathered, I am an American; and this is my only nationality. But I have a great respect for the United Kingdom, and am proud of my heritage from the British Isles – including, and most relevantly, my Welsh heritage. Thus, I have devoured things related to British history; and was glad for the opportunity to watch this series.

How different was the Constitution from the “Articles of Confederation”?

“The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'.”

– Article I of the “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union”

First of all, what is a “Confederation”; and how does it differ from the “Confederacy”?

So what is a “confederation,” and how does it differ from the “Confederacy”? The website of Princeton University defines both “confederation” and “confederacy” as “a union of political organizations” (see entry on “confederation” and entry on “confederacy”). There are other definitions for each word, but this is the one that applies here. Another meaning of a “confederacy,” noted by their website, is that of “the southern states that seceded from the United States in 1861” (see entry on “confederacy”), which is defined as synonymous in this context with the “Confederate States of America.” It is important to understand this point: This is not the meaning that applies here. However, the similarity between these two words was not a coincidence, as the Confederates chose this name carefully. The southern states intended their “Confederacy” to be a union of independent nations with strong “states' rights,” as you may know. The Southern states rejected the idea of a “powerful federal government” with strong central control, and preferred that each state retain its “independence” and “sovereignty.” This may have contributed to their eventual downfall in the American Civil War, as the squabbling between the states proved to be catastrophic for them (but good for the country that they were trying to dissolve). The lack of centralized control was then believed to be a virtue, but it ultimately seems to have proved something of a weakness. The “Articles of Confederation” shared many of these same weaknesses, I am sad to say. It may have been more like the “United Nations” than the United States of America.

Interior of Independence Hall

The Declaration of Independence created thirteen “independent states” …

However, the Articles of Confederation actually started out: “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'.” (Source: Article I) The Articles of Confederation was not the first official document to use the phrase “United States of America,” because the operative paragraph of the Declaration of Independence had a sentence that began: “We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled … ” (Source: The Declaration of Independence, 1776) The idea that the thirteen states would be united together into a “confederacy” was an idea new to the Articles of Confederation in 1781, and was probably a step in the right direction. By contrast, the Declaration of Independence had said that “these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” (Source: The Declaration of Independence, 1776) Unfortunately, each of the thirteen states still possessed most of these powers for themselves under the Articles of Confederation. But by saying that “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America',” the Articles of Confederation was trying to unite the thirteen states together into a “perpetual Union” (in the words of the Preamble to the Articles).

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

“How many presidents have we had?” (Depends on how you count Cleveland and Trump)

So who is "Grover Cleveland," and why does he complicate this answer?

In the presidential elections of 1888, the incumbent president Grover Cleveland actually won the popular vote; but he lost the election anyway that year, because Benjamin Harrison won the electoral vote. Four years later, Cleveland won his rematch with Harrison by both measures, and was thus elected to a second term in 1892. Grover Cleveland was thus the first president ever to serve two non-consecutive terms. Thus, this distinction makes him the 22nd and 24th Presidents of the United States.

Grover Cleveland

So how many presidents have we had in this country?

So how many "Presidents of the United States" have actually held office in this country? The answer is: "Depends on how you count Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump." If you count each of them as two separate presidents, the answer is that Trump is currently our 47th President. But technically, only 45 individuals have actually served as president at the time that I write this; so the question is not as straightforward as it seems.

Grover Cleveland

Some of these presidents have been the subject of movies, such as:

However you answer it, I've blogged about most of these individuals. While I'm not a professional historian, I have as much right to an opinion as anyone else; and so I offer these posts to the world for anyone who is interested.

A review of Ken Burns’ “Jackie Robinson” (PBS)

“ ♪ Did you see Jackie Robinson hit that ball?
It went zoomin 'cross the left field wall.
Yeah boy, yes, yes. Jackie hits that ball. ♪

♪ And when he swung his bat,
the crowd went wild,
because he knocked that ball a solid mile.
Yeah boy, yes, yes. Jackie hits that ball. ♪ ”

– Buddy Johnson's “Did You See Jackie Robinson Hit That Ball?” (1949), with a famous recording by Count Basie in that same year

Before Jackie Robinson, baseball was segregated, with the Black players in a separate league

It has been said that baseball is a profoundly conservative game, which sometimes managed to be years ahead of its time. That is certainly the case with Jackie Robinson; since long before the civil rights movement of the 1960's, Jackie Robinson broke the “color barrier” in 1947. He was the first African American ever to play in the Major Leagues on a permanent basis. There were actually a few African Americans who had played in the Major Leagues before him, and who had been “light-skinned” enough that they could almost pass for “White.” But when their racial background was discovered, they were unfortunately kicked out of Major League Baseball for this reason. Before Jackie Robinson, African Americans were thus forced to play in a segregated set of leagues known as the “Negro Leagues.” (The term “Negro” was considered non-offensive at this time.) It was only after Jackie Robinson permanently broke the color barrier in 1947 that baseball was finally integrated.

Robinson with the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1954

Reading about the trial of Socrates in the original Greek

“The unexamined life is not worth living.”

– Socrates at his trial, as recorded by Plato's “Apology”

Before beginning this project, I had just finished reading C. A. E. Luschnig's “An Introduction to Ancient Greek: A Literary Approach.” (More about that here.) I had earlier determined that after getting through this book, my first use of this (admittedly limited) proficiency would be to read all of the primary sources about the trial of Socrates in the original Greek. There aren't very many of them, I should add here, so I knew that this was a manageable task. Thus, I started doing so immediately after reading the introductory textbook about Greek.

Socrates

The “Fundamental Orders of Connecticut” may be the world’s first written constitution

“I pass over the constitutions of Rhode Island and Connecticut, because they were formed prior to the Revolution, and even before the principle under examination had become an object of political attention.”

– James Madison, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 47)

Some consider this document to be the world’s first written constitution

The United States Constitution was the first written constitution for an entire nation. But there were actually several state constitutions that came before it, which were mostly found in the thirteen colonies that became the early United States. They already had functioning democracies by the time they declared their independence in 1776, and had more than a century of democratic experience by this time. Although the writers of the Constitution would also draw upon the experiences of Greece and Rome (not to mention Great Britain), they would also be drawing upon their own experience as well, and upon the constitutions of their own states. Some would consider the world’s first “constitution” (in the modern Western sense of that word) to be the “Fundamental Orders of Connecticut,” a document that was written in 1639 – nearly a century and a half before the United States Constitution was written in 1787. Some would dispute the claim that the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut were truly the world’s first constitution, I should note here, and I suppose it depends somewhat upon how you define this word. But however you define it, it would nonetheless seem fair to say that the “Fundamental Orders of Connecticut” were groundbreaking; and that they were a considerable influence on the United States Constitution.

The British Parliament was the main model for the United States Congress

“It will be the business of this chapter to consider the British parliament; in which the legislative power, and (of course) the supreme and absolute authority of the state, is vested by our constitution.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 2

The “supreme and absolute authority of the state” was in the legislature

William Blackstone once said that the British Constitution vests the “supreme and absolute authority of the state” in the Parliament. Like Montesquieu before him, Blackstone was a believer in separation of powers (more on that subject here). He believed that the Parliament should be a separate branch of government from the executive authority – which, at that time, was the monarchy. “In all tyrannical governments,” Blackstone also said, “the supreme magistracy, or the right both of making and of enforcing the laws, is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) Wherever these two powers are united together, he said, “there can be no public liberty … [for] The magistrate may enact tyrannical laws, and execute them in a tyrannical manner.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) The magistrate “is possessed, in quality of dispenser of justice, with all the power which he as legislator thinks proper to give himself. But, where the legislative and executive authority are in distinct hands,” he continued, “the former will take care not to entrust the latter with so large a power, as may tend to the subversion of its own independence, and therewith of the liberty of the subject.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) This, he believed, would happen if there were not a Parliament to check the power of the king.

Sir William Blackstone