Why we ignore British history at our peril

“The archbishop or bishop shall say, Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same? --- The king or queen shall say, I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop or bishop. Will you to your power cause law and justice, in mercy, to be executed in all your judgments? --- King or queen. I will.”

– First part of the coronation oath of British monarchs in Sir William Blackstone’s time, as quoted in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 6 (some of the oath’s wording regarding the monarch’s duty to Parliament has since been changed)

I should acknowledge that every known civilization has left its distinctive mark upon the world. But Britain’s influence upon world history, including through its daughter country of the United States, seems particularly great. In the history of the world, I hold Britain’s influence to be pretty much incomparable. In my opinion, even the influence of the Athenian democracy of Ancient Greece, or the Republic and Empire periods of Ancient Rome, may not quite compare to the influence of Britain. Again, the influence of the United States could be seen as being merely an extension of this British influence. It seems to have been the British Isles that gave birth to a government … answering to most of their people. (More about that later on in this post.) I understand that the influence of other civilizations is also great, and I have likewise covered some of their truly-salutary influence elsewhere. For example, I have covered India here, China here, and Japan here. I have covered Mexico here, Brazil here, and the distant African continent here. But nearly every post-Renaissance civilization has been influenced, to some degree or another, by the sons and daughters of the British Isles. Some of that influence has been good, and some of it has obviously been rather bad. But all of it has been important, in one way or another, for the history of the larger world.

Forgotten world empires: The rise and fall of the Dutch Empire

During the Enlightenment, the Netherlands were one of the world’s great imperial powers. They were then one of the freest countries in the world. They had a large measure of freedom of religion, as well as a high measure of free markets. These things contributed to make them one of the greatest powers of their time. This might seem ironic, because Holland was then (and still is now) a small country. But its robust economy gave it power far beyond its numbers. The Dutch colonial empire rose to be one of the greatest empires in the world. But, eventually, most of that empire was lost, and the Dutch Empire then went the way of many other great empires of the past. Obviously, there is a darker side to this colonial empire, as there was with every other such empire in history. But there may still be a few things to learn from their astonishing success story. And we might also be able to learn a few things from this empire’s decline and fall.

The Amsterdam Stock Exchange, circa 1670

The long-neglected contributions of New Zealand in World War II

“This is not an occasion for many words; it is a dark day in the history of the world … It is with deep regret and sadness that I make this announcement on behalf of the government [of New Zealand], and the people will receive it with similar feelings. That will not, however, affect the determination of both government and people to play their part.”

– Peter Fraser (then the acting prime minister of New Zealand), on 3 September 1939 – the sitting prime minister (Michael Joseph Savage) was then recovering from colon cancer, and was thus unable to declare war for the country for himself

The role of New Zealanders in World War II has long been neglected elsewhere …

World War II may well have been the subject of more documentaries than any other single topic in history. For example, there is the landmark British miniseries “The World at War,” and the “BBC History of World War II.” The American perspective has been depicted by Ken Burns’ “The War,” and the Canadian perspective has been depicted by “Canada at War.” And the Australian-made documentary “ANZAC” covers the Australian perspective. But that documentary has very little mention (indeed, almost no mention) of the contributions of New Zealanders – the other “ANZAC” nation. (More about that acronym here.) Moreover, I’ve been unable to find any documentary that focuses on the New Zealand perspective of World War II. If you are aware of such a documentary, please feel free to leave a comment below, telling me and my readers something about it. This popular omission is a shame, because the “Kiwis” (as New Zealanders are sometimes called) suffered much in World War II. Among the British Commonwealth nations, they suffered more than any other nation except the United Kingdom itself. That is, more than 1 in 130 New Zealanders died in World War II. This is higher than the death rates of South Africa, the United States, Canada, and even India and Australia. In New Zealand – and, to a lesser extent, Australia – Kiwi sacrifices are remembered every “Anzac Day,” on the anniversary of the 1915 beginning of the Gallipoli invasion. But the contributions of New Zealanders tend to be mostly forgotten, in almost every other part of the world. In fairness, this may be because New Zealand is a somewhat smaller nation, whose very existence is usually forgotten in some more distant parts of the world. But the unique Kiwi contributions are still worth remembering today, and have some unique drama of their own.

Wellingtons of the Royal New Zealand Air Force – England, 1939

Both the Renaissance and the Enlightenment shaped our modern world

During the Middle Ages, much Greek learning had been preserved in the nearby Arabic world. It was also preserved in the Byzantine Empire, until that empire’s downfall in 1453. But it was only during the Renaissance that this Greek learning was rediscovered in Western Europe. The Western world thus gained renewed access to the original Latin and Greek versions of key philosophical texts. And with this new emphasis upon the older Greek learning … came an increased emphasis on the Greek methods of pursuing truth. Free inquiry had now been revived in the West, and it would be exemplified in some further progress in the years to come.

Raphael’s “The School of Athens,” a Renaissance painting that dramatized Greek learning

The Philosophers’ Meal, an Enlightenment painting of several of the French Encyclopédistes

How the Founding Fathers warned us about tyranny

“As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.”

– John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” (published 1689), Chapter XVIII

An anecdote about how Sparta installed its “Thirty Tyrants” in Athens after a war

In 404 BC, a Greek city-state (Athens) was utterly defeated in a war. Athens had been fighting the Peloponnesian War, and the war had initially gone well for the Athenians. But the Spartans, sadly, won the war in the end. Thus, the Spartans installed their own puppet regime in Athens. It was simply called the “Thirty Tyrants.” The word “tyrant” originally meant something like “absolute monarch,” or “absolute ruler of a polis” (with “polis” meaning a “city-state”). Incidentally, the word “monarchy” comes from Greek words meaning “rule by one” – or “rule by one person.” But, as the name “Thirty Tyrants” indicates, there were instead thirty of them. Thus, the Thirty Tyrants were more like an “oligarchy,” which comes from a few Greek words meaning “rule by a few.” Incidentally, the term “oligarchy” has since come to have a negative connotation in English. As early as Ancient Greece, Aristotle was describing an “oligarchy” as the corrupted form of an “aristocracy” (which comes from Greek words meaning “rule by the best”). Regardless, whatever you call them, the Thirty Tyrants turned out to be a terrible regime. As Wikipedia puts it, “the Thirty became known for their tyrannical rule, first being called ‘The Thirty Tyrants’ by Polycrates.[footnote] Although they maintained power for only eight months, their reign resulted in the killing of 5% of the Athenian population, the confiscation of citizens' property, and the exile of other democratic supporters.” (see source) A century later (that is, in 304 BC), Agathocles of Syracuse adopted this same title of “tyrant.”

Pisistratus of Athens – who called himself a “tyrant” in this older sense, but was still popular

The French Wars of Religion: The Catholics strike back

Why did Protestantism never really catch on in France? (History gives us the answer)

Catholics are still nearly half of the population of France. Specifically, they now make up 47% of the French population, as of 2021. (see source) Another 33% of the contemporary French population identify as having “no religion.” Less than 3% of the French population is Protestant today. How did it come to be that way? Why is Protestantism such a tiny minority in France? Why did Protestantism never really catch on in France, the way that it did in nearby England and Holland? The answers seem to lie (at least partially) in the French wars of religion. These were a great victory for the Catholics. During the Renaissance, a massive civil war erupted between the French Catholics and the French Protestants. It was partly over control of the throne, because the powerful monarchies of the era had considerable influence upon the state religion. The sixteenth century was generally the era of the Protestant Reformation. In Germany, Martin Luther published his “95 Theses,” a written attack on the Catholic Church. This led to the formation of the Lutheran churches. This was also the century of King Henry the Eighth, in the nearby British Isles. In defiance of the Pope, King Henry divorced Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn. He thus created the Church of England in the process. And, in France, John Calvin was still alive when the French wars of religion began. The battles over the state religions in these European countries … continue to have massive consequences to this day.

Massacre at Vassy, 1562

A review of “Reconstruction: America After the Civil War”

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

– Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1865)

The first episode covers events in Reconstruction under President Andrew Johnson

In 2004, PBS released a three-hour film called “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War” (not to be confused with this film). As far as I know, “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War” was PBS’s first attempt to cover this unknown (but still important) subject. This prior 2004 film used a more traditional delineation of when Reconstruction began, and when it ultimately ended. PBS’s “Reconstruction: America After the Civil War” came out in 2019 – fifteen years after the prior film. Both films start their story in roughly the same place. That is, major combat in the American Civil War was now ending with the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865. We can only guess as to how Abraham Lincoln would have handled the complicated issues of postwar Reconstruction. This is because Abraham Lincoln was soon murdered by an assassin’s bullet in 1865. This meant that the task of Reconstruction would now be passed to his Southern-born successor Andrew Johnson. Andrew Johnson had remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War, but he was still a committed racist. This would have important consequences for his policies regarding the former slaves, and how they were to be treated. The first episode of this film focuses on the Andrew Johnson portion of Reconstruction. Andrew Johnson served for nearly four years, finishing the term that he had inherited from Abraham Lincoln. (He had been Lincoln’s vice president for roughly a month before that.) But Andrew Johnson soon became the first president to be impeached. For these and other reasons (too complicated to detail here), Andrew Johnson thus failed to be elected in 1868. More about the reasons for this well-deserved failure here.

Freed blacks voting in New Orleans, 1867