A review of “Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine”

“And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”

- The New Testament, “The Acts of the Apostles,” Chapter 11, Verse 26 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

Constantine was the first Roman emperor to become a Christian. Thus, “Ancient Roads from Christ to Constantine” is really a history of the early Christian faith, from its beginning with Christ to its flourishing under Constantine. After his conversion, Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. Today, it is the world's largest religion; and it is doubtful that it would have ever become that way otherwise.

The Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights influenced our Constitution

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

– Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution

It might come as a surprise to say this, but the British have a real “Constitution,” even if it isn't all written down in one document like ours might seem to be. Rather, it would seem to be a constitution built out of multiple documents, such as the Magna Carta and the Petition of Right (both of which I have covered in prior posts). No less important are the Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights, which were foundational for the rights of English-speaking countries. Like the other documents mentioned here, they would both have an enormous influence on the United States Constitution. I have covered the other documents mentioned here in some other posts of this series, so I will instead focus my attention here on the Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights (both vitally important).

Parliament of England

Actually, William Blackstone DID mention the 1689 Bill of Rights (sorry Wikipedia)

Note: There is a difference between the old and new styles of calendar, which will become relevant to our discussion.

Some Wikipedia articles are reliable, while others are not (and others are somewhere in between)

So I've often enjoyed reading articles from Wikipedia, and have linked to a number of these articles from my own blog over the years. Some of these articles are reliable, while others are not. Many of them are somewhere in between. Possibly one of these articles to be somewhere in between is the article about William Blackstone, which contained some good information about William Blackstone, and some bad information. For example, the "Criticism" section of that page said that “English jurist Jeremy Bentham was a critic of Blackstone's theories.[132] Others saw Blackstone's theories as inaccurate statements of English law, using the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Tractatus of Glanville and the 1689 Bill of Rights as particularly obvious examples of laws Blackstone omitted.” (Source: "William Blackstone" page, "Criticism" section)

Jeremy Bentham

According to Wikipedia, some have claimed that Blackstone “omitted” the 1689 Bill of Rights

The part about how “English jurist Jeremy Bentham was a critic of Blackstone's theories” is properly sourced at the “[132]”. While I don't agree with Bentham's criticisms (indeed, I find them wildly inaccurate), I do agree that he was “a critic of Blackstone's theories” – this much is pretty well-established, and that is all that the source claims here. But the second sentence has no source, which makes me wonder who exactly is making these criticisms. The sentence in question says that “Others saw Blackstone's theories as inaccurate statements of English law, using the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Tractatus of Glanville and the 1689 Bill of Rights as particularly obvious examples of laws Blackstone omitted.” Blackstone did mention both the “Constitutions of Clarendon” and the “Tractatus of Glanville” in his magnum opus, the "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (as I show in another blog post). And most relevantly, he also mentioned the “1689 Bill of Rights,” which these critics would know if they had bothered to read the very first chapter of the very first book of the “Commentaries.”

Jeremy Bentham

How did the Massachusetts Body of Liberties influence the Bill of Rights?

“No man shall be put to death without the testimony of two or three witnesses or that which is equivalent thereunto.”

– The Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641), Section 47

The Massachusetts Body of Liberties codified many of the basic rights and privileges that we enjoy today. It had an early form of freedom of speech, and a right to petition the government with a “complaint.” It listed several rights of the accused; such as a protection from double jeopardy, a protection from forced confessions, and a protection from excessive bail. It gave them rights to a trial in criminal cases, and the right to an attorney to represent them in these trials. It gave them protections of life and property (as well as the right to challenge jurors), and some potent protections against any “inhumane Barbarous or cruel” bodily punishments. All of these things influenced the United States Bill of Rights, and it is hard to imagine life in this country without them. Our country would be in a much worse shape, if we didn't have these things. Thus, an examination of these rights would seem to be appropriate here. (I have decided to preserve the original spellings of its passages when quoting them, to give the reader something of their style and flavor.)

A review of “Tora! Tora! Tora!” (1970 movie)

“Thus, the earnest hope of the Japanese Government to adjust Japanese-American relations and to preserve and promote the peace of the Pacific through cooperation with the American Government has finally been lost. The Japanese Government regrets to have to notify hereby the American Government that in view of the attitude of the American Government it cannot but consider that it is impossible to reach an agreement through further negotiations.”

– Closing lines of the “Japanese Note to the United States,” on 7 December 1941 (which was delivered an hour after the Pearl Harbor attack, and did not contain an actual declaration of war anyway)

Pearl Harbor was part of a series of attacks throughout the Pacific …

On a warm Sunday morning in Hawaii, Japanese carrier planes attacked the United States fleet in Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. But contrary to popular perception, this was not the only place that they attacked that day. The attack was actually simultaneous with moves elsewhere in the Pacific on places like British Malaya, British Singapore, and British Hong Kong. Prior to these attacks, neither the United States nor Britain had been at war with Japan; so these two countries were thus drawn into the Pacific theater of World War II at almost the same time. Other American possessions that were attacked at around this time were Guam, Wake Island, Midway Island, and the Philippines.

"Battleship Row" at Pearl Harbor (photograph taken from a Japanese torpedo plane, 1941)

A review of PBS's “Murder of a President” (James A. Garfield)

“I conceived of the idea of removing the President four weeks ago. Not a soul knew of my purpose. I conceived the idea myself. I read the newspapers carefully, for and against the administration, and gradually, the conviction settled on me that the President's removal was a political necessity, because he proved a traitor to the men who made him, and thereby imperiled the life of the Republic ... Ingratitude is the basest of crimes. That the President, under the manipulation of his Secretary of State, has been guilty of the basest ingratitude to the Stalwarts admits of no denial. ... In the President's madness he has wrecked the once grand old Republican party; and for this he dies.... I had no ill-will to the President. This is not murder. It is a political necessity. It will make my friend Arthur President, and save the Republic.”

– Charles Guiteau, in his letter to the American people, on 16 June 1881

On July 2nd, 1881, Charles J. Guiteau went to the Baltimore and Potomac Railway Station, and lay in wait for his intended murder victim. President James A. Garfield was scheduled to leave Washington D.C., and Guiteau wanted him dead before his train ever left the city. When President Garfield walked into the waiting room of the station, Charles Guiteau walked up behind him and pulled the trigger at point-blank range from behind. President Garfield cried out: “My God, what is that?”, flinging up his arms. Guiteau fired a second shot, and the president collapsed. One bullet grazed the president's shoulder, while the other struck him in the back. Guiteau put his pistol back into his pocket and turned to leave via a cab that he had waiting for him outside the station, but he collided with policeman Patrick Kearney, who was entering the station after hearing the gunfire. Kearney apprehended Guiteau, and asked him: “In God's name, what did you shoot the president for?” Guiteau did not respond. The crowd called for Guiteau to be lynched, but Kearney took Guiteau to the police station instead. (This paragraph borrows some exact wording from Wikipedia, which I should acknowledge here as a source.)

Contemporaneous depiction of Garfield assassination, with James G. Blaine at right

President Garfield with James G. Blaine in the railway station, shortly after the shooting

A review of PBS's “The Great War” (American Experience)

“We [the German government] intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.”

– Zimmermann Telegram (1917), one of the events that led to the American entry into World War One

President Woodrow Wilson walked a tightrope during the early years of World War One, trying to steer a middle course between full neutrality and full involvement. Of course, Americans did not declare war on Germany until April 1917, and waited even longer than that to send troops to Europe. But even at the beginning of the war in 1914, most Americans did not want the Germans to win, and some of them actually sold food (and sometimes weapons) to the Allied nations. There was a massive peace movement before America officially got involved, and PBS makes sure to cover it here. But there were also many supporters of getting involved sooner - and this, too, receives some good coverage from PBS. Among the supporters of earlier American involvement was the former president Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a major critic of Wilson for his perceived lack of muscle in this struggle - a correct perception. But Wilson was also criticized by the peace movement for supporting aid to Britain and France. Thus, he was having a hard time walking this tightrope within his own party. Unfortunately for Wilson, this balancing act would prove even harder when the Germans sank the RMS Lusitania in 1915.

Sinking of the RMS Lusitania, 7 May 1915