How did the Founding Fathers use Blackstone's writings about the monarchy?

“The office of president is treated with levity and intimated to be a machine calculated for state pageantry. Suffer me to view the commander of the fleets and armies of America, with a reverential awe, inspired by the contemplation of his great prerogatives, though not dignified with the magic name of King, he will possess more supreme power, than Great Britain allows her hereditary monarchs, who derive ability to support an army from annual supplies, and owe the command of one to an annual mutiny law. The American president may be granted supplies for two years, and his command of a standing army is unrestrained by law or limitation.”

– An anonymous letter signed “Tamony,” dated 20 December 1787

Tamony argued that presidents would possess more “supreme power” than monarchs …

During the ratification debates, an anonymous letter to “The Virginia Independent Chronicle” feared that the president would become more powerful than a monarch. He said that the president, “though not dignified with the magic name of King, he will possess more supreme power, than Great Britain allows her hereditary monarchs” (Source: text of the letter). These fears, though unfounded, were actually quite typical of many of the opponents of the Constitution at this time. This letter was actually dated 20 December 1787, but it was not printed in “The Virginia Independent Chronicle” until 9 January 1788. Later, it was reprinted in “The Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer” on 1 February 1788; and was soon after seen by Alexander Hamilton in that Pennsylvania paper. Because Alexander Hamilton saw the version printed in Philadelphia, he would later refer to the author in the Federalist Papers as “A writer in a Pennsylvania paper, under the signature of TAMONY” (Source: Footnote to Federalist No. 69). As you might expect, Alexander Hamilton disagreed with the author of this letter on this point; and offered a response to him in the Federalist Papers. To bolster his case, he actually cited Blackstone's “Commentaries,” a prestigious legal work from that time. There is an irony in this, I might add here, since William Blackstone had actually opposed the American Revolution until his death in 1780. Nonetheless, Hamilton considered him worth citing in the Federalist Papers anyway, and proceeded to debunk Tamony's argument with some quotes from Blackstone's “Commentaries.”

Alexander Hamilton

A review of the BBC's “The Story of Maths” (by Marcus du Sautoy)

“Maths is the true language that the universe is written in – the key to understanding the world around us.”

– Marcus du Sautoy, in the conclusion of this series

In America, we often shorten the word “mathematics” to just “math.” In Britain, they retain the pluralization of “mathematics” to make it “maths,” even when shortening it in this way. Thus, no one from Britain would ever be likely to say just “math,” and would probably consider it an Americanism that would sound a little strange to them. But whatever you call it, I've been tutoring people in the subject since 2012, as a professional “math” tutor (and I am an American, as you may have guessed from my spelling of this word).

Some thoughts about math education

“4 out of 3 people struggle with math.”

– A joke of unknown origin

As some of you know, I've been a professional math tutor since 2012. This is the first post where I've really talked much about my job. (I may or may not do others on this subject.)

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