Calvin Coolidge: One of our greatest presidents

Wikipedia gets the presidency of Calvin Coolidge badly and wildly wrong …

Calvin Coolidge may be one of the greatest presidents in American history. But, strangely enough, Wikipedia notes that “Scholars have ranked Coolidge in the lower half of U.S. presidents. He gains nearly universal praise for his stalwart support of racial equality during a period of heightened racial tension in the nation,[footnote] and is highly praised by advocates of smaller government and laissez-faire economics; supporters of an active central government generally view him far less favorably.” (Source: Their page on “Calvin Coolidge”) I agree that this is why his critics have tended to view him a bit less favorably. And, regarding other presidents, I have sometimes tended to agree with the general consensus of historians. But I feel that these historians have gotten this call badly and wildly wrong, and seriously underestimated the benefits of President Calvin Coolidge. Their ratings seem to have come from a bloated belief in the value of big government, and from fundamental misunderstandings of economic principles to boot. Thus, it may be time to challenge this popular view of Calvin Coolidge, and give a more accurate picture of the Coolidge administration.

Calvin Coolidge

A review of “The Spanish-American War” (audiobook)

The Spanish-American War started out as one of the most popular wars in American history. It was only long after the fact that it started to become unpopular even in the United States. The press – and in particular, the newspaper editor William Randolph Hearst – clamored for war at this time. Why did the United States do so? This is a topic that this audiobook examines in some depth. Specifically, they explore the American motivations for this war with Spain.

Did the Iroquois Confederacy influence the Constitution?

“Helvetius and Rousseau preached to the French nation liberty, till they made them the most mechanical slaves; equality till they destroyed all equity; humanity till they became weasels, and Affrican panthers; and fraternity till they cutt one anothers throats like Roman gladiators.”

– John Adams, in a letter to Benjamin Waterhouse (21 May 1821)

I turn now to some hypothesized “influences” upon the United States Constitution

On this blog, I have extensively discussed the influences on the Constitution – such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and David Hume. Many of these influences are well-attested by evidence. Here, I turn to some other “influences” upon the Constitution which are merely hypothesized. These include the Greek philosopher Plato, the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the Iroquois Confederacy – a historical group of Native American tribes. There are popular theories in some quarters that they “influenced” the United States Constitution to a significant degree. Thus, I plan here to examine some of the debates regarding these theories, and inquire into the evidence for them.

Plato

The British Empire: From the Acts of Union to the Battle of Waterloo

The eighteenth century was a crucial period for the British Empire. It saw the birth of the “Kingdom of Great Britain” itself, in the 1707 “Acts of Union.” It saw much-admired advances in philosophy, from the English philosophers to the “Scottish Enlightenment.” And it saw many important political developments for the British Empire, at home and abroad. For example, it saw the continuation of an ongoing struggle between Britain and France. Britain would be affected by the loss of many of its overseas colonies in North America. Much closer to home, it was affected by the French Revolution, and the chaos left in its wake. Thus, in the early nineteenth century, it would eventually fight the Napoleonic Wars, one of the defining conflicts of its history. Therefore, an examination of this general period might be in order here. That is, I plan to go from the 1707 “Acts of Union” … to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. This period has a massive legacy for the British Empire, and for many of its former overseas colonies.

Battle of Trafalgar – Spain, 1805

A review of “The Story of Electricity” (audiobook)

We tend to associate the story of electricity with Thomas Edison inventing the light bulb. Alternatively, we tend to associate it with Benjamin Franklin flying a kite in a lightning storm. But there’s more to the story of electricity than that. It goes back much further than most people realize. Even in antiquity, people recognized that there was static electricity, although it was not yet known by that name. Electricity was often confused with magnetism, which is another subject that is covered in this audiobook. For example, people knew about magnetic iron ore, now know as the “lodestone.” And they knew about how amber can attract small objects after being rubbed. In fact, the English word “electricity” comes from a Greek word for amber.

How the Greeks and Romans influenced the Founding Fathers

Note: This blog post quotes from some historical documents, which contain words that would now be considered offensive. These words are only in quotation, and do not represent the views of this blog.

Did the Greeks and Romans influence the Founding Fathers? Personally, I believe that they did indeed do so, but I should nonetheless first acknowledge the only contrary quotation that I have yet found. Specifically, in 1782, Alexander Hamilton wrote that “We may preach till we are tired of the theme, the necessity of disinterestedness in republics, without making a single proselyte. The virtuous declaimer will neither persuade himself nor any other person to be content with a double mess of porridge,* instead of a reasonable stipend for his services. We might as soon reconcile ourselves to the Spartan community of goods and wives, to their iron coin, their long beards, or their black broth. There is a total dissimulation in the circumstances, as well as the manners, of society among us; and it is as ridiculous to seek for models in the simple ages of Greece and Rome, as it would be to go in quest of them among the Hottentots [his word, not mine] and Laplanders.” (Source: His writing entitled “The Continentalist No. VI, 4 July 1782”) As Wikipedia informs us, Hamilton’s chosen term of “Hottentots” (again, his word, not mine) was once used to refer to a particular tribe in South Africa, but the term is now considered a little offensive. By contrast, the term “Laplanders” refers to a group in Northeastern Europe, located in and around Finland. Thus, Alexander Hamilton thought it “as ridiculous to seek for models in the simple ages of Greece and Rome” as it was to “go in quest of them” among these other groups.

Alexander Hamilton

The Roman Republic attained to the “utmost height” of human greatness

However, in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton would later write that “the Roman republic attained to the utmost height of human greatness.” (See the quotation at the beginning of this link for the details.) Thus, Alexander Hamilton still had some admiration for the “simple ages of Greece and Rome” (as he had earlier put it), even if he had some reservations about “seek[ing] for models” among them. What evidence exists, then, that the Ancient Greeks and Romans did indeed influence the Founding Fathers? In this blog post, I will try to answer this question. As I will show here, the evidence is massive, and shows that the Founding Fathers gratefully acknowledged their debt to both Greek and Roman society.

Greek philosopher Socrates

A review of the “BBC History of World War II”

Note: This is a collection of several BBC documentaries about World War II. That is to say, it is not a unified history like “The World at War” is. Nonetheless, many of its documentaries are quite good, so I thought that I would review some of them here. I have reviewed the others elsewhere, in posts more focused on their respective topics.

I’ve actually reviewed five of the BBC’s installments elsewhere …

The “BBC History of World War II” contains ten different documentaries about various aspects of this conflict. I have reviewed a number of these documentaries in other blog posts. For example, I have reviewed “The Nazis: A Warning from History” here, “The Road to War” here, “War of the Century: When Hitler Fought Stalin” here, “Horror in the East: Japan and the Atrocities of World War II” here, and “Auschwitz: The Nazis and the ‘Final Solution’” here. To review these again in this post would risk being redundant. Thus, I will not attempt to duplicate much of that coverage in this blog post.

British Lancaster bomber over Hamburg, 1943

… so I will instead focus this post on reviewing the other five BBC installments of this series

But there are five other installments that I’ve waited until now to comment on. I will thus try to cover these five documentaries in this post. To me, these five films would seem to have a common theme – namely, that they’re all focused on the combat part of the war against Nazi Germany, as engaged in by the Western Allies – and, particularly, the British. These installments are as follows: “Dunkirk,” “Battle of the Atlantic,” “Battlefields,” “D-Day 6.6.1944” (also marketed as “D-Day: Reflections of Courage”), and “D-Day to Berlin.” As you might imagine, there’s plenty of material to talk about with these subjects, and with the way that the BBC covers them.