The Continental Congresses: The backstory of the United States Congress

“An act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties, in the British colonies and plantations in America, towards further defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same; and for amending such parts of the several acts of parliament relating to the trade and revenues of the said colonies and plantations, as direct the manner of determining and recovering the penalties and forfeitures therein mentioned.”

– Long title of the “Duties in American Colonies Act 1765” (better known as the “Stamp Act”), as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain

Albany Congress (1754) is formed in the year that the French and Indian War began

In 1754, a war broke out in British North America, a war that Americans know as the “French and Indian War.” This war would eventually lead to a worldwide conflict known as the “Seven Years’ War,” which would break out two years later in 1756. But something else happened in 1754 that might not have seemed particularly important at the time. A number of the British colonies in North America sent delegates to the “Albany Congress of 1754.” This is the first of several Congresses that would eventually lead to the creation of the United States Congress. The Albany Congress met for only one month. During this time, representatives met daily at the City Hall to discuss a number of important issues. Among these were better relations with the Native American tribes, and common defensive measures against the French threat from Canada – since the “French and Indian War” meant that British North America was now at war with both France and its overseas colonies in Canada.

The Albany Congress, 1754

Parliament passes the Stamp Act (1765), which leads to the Stamp Act Congress (1765)

The French and Indian War began in 1754, but the worldwide conflict known as the “Seven Years’ War” did not begin until 1756 (or so Americans remember it). When it began, the “French and Indian War” (as Americans call it) became the North American theater of this larger worldwide conflict. But when Britain and France later made peace with each other in 1763, both this larger conflict and its North American portion were over. Things might have seemed like they would remain peaceful. But in 1765, Britain passed the Stamp Act (cited earlier), which enacted taxes on stamps in North America. In the thirteen colonies, these stamps would be required for legal documents, playing cards, calendars, newspapers, and dice. The colonies were not happy about these taxes, since they were being passed by a Parliament in which the colonists were not represented. It is true that these taxes were not very large, but the actual amount of the tax was never the issue. The issue was whether the British Parliament had any right to tax the colonies to begin with, when the colonies were not represented in the body that was taxing them. I doubt that the British people of today would put up with being taxed by the United States Congress, since they have no representation in it. In a similar way, colonists were not about to put up with being taxed by Parliament, and thus organized the Stamp Act Congress in 1765.

1d Stamp Act of 1765 proof

A review of “Early Austrian Economics” (audiobook)

So I recently finished an audiobook about “Early Austrian Economics,” about the famous Austrian School in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. This is a school that has long been admired by conservatives, because they supported the idea that free markets reflect the subjective preferences of individuals (specifically consumers). Thus, they considered free markets to be a positive thing on this account. Their work was highly focused on economic science, but it did have obvious political implications as well, because of the insight that markets meet the demand of society, and satisfy its needs and wants.

Actually, the Confederacy had no intention of ever abolishing slavery

Warning: For obvious reasons, this post does not censor the offensive language out of the historical sources that it quotes from. To do so would be to obscure the truth about past racism and bigotry.

The Confederate Constitution shows that the South intended to prolong slavery

Even today, there are still some White Southerners who support slavery (although they are few), but most of them now disapprove of the institution, and the racial discrimination that was at the heart of it in these prior times. Perhaps because of this, there have been some White Southerners in recent years who have argued that the South would have abolished slavery anyway, and that it was inclined to do so at this time. (The fictional book “The Guns of the South” is one example of this trend, and I have encountered various other examples of this in some conversations that I have had with White Southerners over the years.)

I will show this with some relevant quotations from the Confederate Constitution

Because of this, it might be helpful to correct the record here, and show that the South had no intention of ever abolishing slavery. I will do this with some quotations from the so-called “Constitution of the Confederate States” (ratified 1862), which show how pro-slavery this wanna-be “Constitution” really was. In many ways, it was even more pro-slavery than the United States Constitution that it would have permanently replaced, which had a number of defects of its own with regards to slavery.

First page of the Confederate Constitution

A review of “Joseph Schumpeter and Dynamic Economic Change” (audiobook)

I recently finished listening to an audiobook about the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, who lived from 1883 to 1950. He eventually emigrated to the United States, and obtained U. S. citizenship. This was a good audiobook about him, and seemed to offer a good summation of his life's work. But I have somewhat mixed feelings about Joseph Schumpeter's ideas.

Funny communism jokes

Note: Some photos in this particular blog post may be anachronistic. They are intended only to enhance the humor, and are not intended to represent the particular periods under discussion here.

A funny story told by Ronald Reagan:

“It is said that Castro was making a speech to a large assembly, and he was going on at great length; and then a voice out in the crowd said: ‘Peanuts, popcorn, cracker jack?’

Fidel Castro, late dictator of communist Cuba

And he went on, speaking; and again the voice said: ‘Peanuts, popcorn, cracker jack?’

And about the fourth time this happened, he stopped in his regular speech and he said, ‘The next time he says that,’ he says, ‘I'm gonna find out who he is, and kick him all the way to Miami!’”

And everybody in the crowd says: ‘Peanuts, popcorn, cracker jack?’ ”

*****

A review of “Socrates” (audiobook)

“That’s the strange thing about writing, which makes it truly analogous to painting. The painter’s products stand before us as though they were alive: but if you question them, they maintain a most majestic silence. It is the same with written words: they seem to talk to you as though they were intelligent, but if you ask them anything about what they say, from a desire to be instructed, they go on telling you the same thing for ever.”

– Socrates, as recorded in Plato’s “Phaedrus”

Before listening to this audiobook, I had read all the primary sources about the trial of Socrates in the original Greek. Thus, I already knew much about that part of his life before listening to this audiobook. I had also gleaned some information about other parts of his life from some other sources. But I still learned a few things from this audiobook. In particular, I enjoyed their presentation of his life story, and what we know about it from the writings of that time.

A review of Ken Burns’ “The Congress” (PBS)

“One useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.”

– John Adams

It’s hard to do justice to the history of Congress in an hour and a half …

“The Congress” is one of Ken Burns’ lesser-known films, perhaps partially because it was made before he became famous. “The Congress” was made in 1988, two years before his film “The Civil War” came out in 1990. Since “The Congress” is one of his earliest films, it did not have the budget granted to some of his later films (such as his World War II series). Perhaps partly because of this, it was only an hour and a half long. It’s hard to do justice to the history of Congress in an hour and a half, but I will grant that Ken Burns makes a good-faith effort to do so.