James K. Polk: President during the Mexican-American War

James K. Polk was one of the most expansionist presidents in American history. In 1845, he oversaw the annexation of the Republic of Texas, which had once belonged to Mexico. In 1846, he oversaw a full-scale war with Mexico, which would lead to the annexation of what is now the American Southwest. Mexico had formerly claimed the Oregon territory as well, but Oregon was divided between the United States and the British Empire in 1846. Oregon then became an incorporated territory of the United States in 1848, also during the presidency of Mr. Polk. But there’s more to the story of James K. Polk than his controversial foreign policy. He was also a believer in Jacksonian democracy, and the last president of the “Jacksonian Era.” James K. Polk is the only Speaker of the House of Representatives ever to be elected president. But who exactly is James K. Polk? What are the complexities of his legacy? And just where did this man come from? These are the questions that this post will try to examine.

James K. Polk

Warren G. Harding: Popular in life, unpopular in death

Warren G. Harding is now known as one of the worst presidents in American history. Many today would even consider him the very worst, although he has several painful contenders for this dubious distinction. But, surprisingly, he was quite popular during his lifetime – and during his presidency. The scandals of his administration only surfaced after he died of a heart attack while in office. Why was he popular in life? Where did he come from, and how did he get to the White House? And how did his presidency become such a train wreck, living in posthumous infamy until the present day? These are the questions that this post will attempt to explain. This post will give a brief overview of the career of Warren Gamaliel Harding, a bitter train wreck of a president.

Warren G. Harding

Even after 1776, the Founding Fathers remained proud of their British heritage

“In England, for a long time after the Norman Conquest, the authority of the monarch was almost unlimited. Inroads were gradually made upon the prerogative, in favor of liberty, first by the barons, and afterwards by the people, till the greatest part of its most formidable pretensions became extinct. But it was not till the revolution in 1688, which elevated the Prince of Orange to the throne of Great Britain, that English liberty was completely triumphant.”

– Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 26), written 1787

Our Founding Fathers rebelled against Great Britain, but were still proud of their heritage

In the thirteen American colonies, George Washington once fought on behalf of the mother country of Great Britain. At that time, the colonies had not even contemplated declaring their independence from Great Britain. Therefore, George Washington fought as a British soldier, early in the “French and Indian War” (as it is now called). Benjamin Franklin spent an even longer portion of his life being patriotic to Great Britain, and even working as part of the distant British government. Nonetheless, both men would eventually rebel against the mother country, with Benjamin Franklin voting in the Continental Congress to declare independence from Great Britain. George Washington would even take up arms against the British Empire on the battlefield. For many years, the British (and their American Loyalist allies) would be extremely unpopular in the rebellious American colonies, and in the new American republic that was soon succeeding them. This would eventually lead the colonies to fight against Great Britain one more time in the War of 1812, under President James Madison. Thus, you might expect that the Founding Fathers would have begun to hate their British heritage. But, on the contrary, they continued to remain proud of many aspects of their British heritage. This post will attempt to show this, and explain why they were right to remain proud of the mother country’s heritage, even after 1776.

Lord Cornwallis surrenders to General George Washington at Yorktown, 1781

A review of Ken Burns’ “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History”

A miniseries covering Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Eleanor Roosevelt

Just as the Americans remember Mr. Churchill, so do the British remember Mr. Roosevelt. But when people in Britain hear the name “Roosevelt,” they tend to think of Franklin Roosevelt, the man who led the United States during World War II. Many in Britain don’t even realize that there was another “Roosevelt” president before him. That is, there was Theodore Roosevelt, in the early twentieth century. Theodore Roosevelt is a little more famous in America than he is abroad. Nonetheless, even Americans will hear the word “Roosevelt,” and instead think of his fifth cousin Franklin Roosevelt. There were two famous divisions of the Roosevelt family, of which this documentary makes extensive note. One was the “Oyster Bay Roosevelts,” the branch that produced Theodore Roosevelt. The other was the “Hyde Park Roosevelts,” the branch that produced FDR. But there was another Roosevelt who was one of the bridges between these two branches – although there were other marriages between the branches. That is, there was Eleanor Roosevelt. She was born into the “Oyster Bay Roosevelts” as Theodore Roosevelt’s niece. But she married into the “Hyde Park Roosevelts,” when she married FDR – her own fifth cousin once removed. These are the three principal characters of the story.

A review of “A New Understanding of the Atom” (audiobook)

When the first atomic bombs went off in 1945, people witnessed the awesome power of the atom. It was so small that even microscopes failed to detect it, and yet it could cause the largest of any man-made explosions. But it was suspected even in antiquity that the world is made up of tiny particles. The word “atom” is itself of very ancient origin, and originally meant “indivisible.” But as any high school chemistry student knows, atoms are divided into much smaller parts. These include protons, neutrons, and electrons (among other things).

Why is Chester A. Arthur now considered one of the “least memorable” presidents?

On July 2nd, 1881, Charles J. Guiteau shot the 20th President of the United States. The president was James A. Garfield, the predecessor of Chester A. Arthur. And Garfield had taken office only four months before. When Garfield was shot in the Baltimore and Potomac Railway Station, his assailant was immediately apprehended there. When a police officer asked Mr. Guiteau why he had shot the president, Guiteau did not immediately respond. But the press later revealed a letter in which Guiteau described his bizarre motives, saying that he would make his “friend Arthur President.” (See the relevant portion of the letter here.) Thus, people initially wondered if Vice President Chester A. Arthur was involved in the murder. After all, the vice president was next in line for the presidency, if Garfield should later happen to die from his gunshot wounds. Fortunately for Chester A. Arthur, it was later established that Guiteau had acted alone, and was wholly unconnected with the vice president. All of this was true, and Arthur was indeed innocent of this kind of wrongdoing. But two months after the shooting, President James A. Garfield died in his bed. Thus, Chester A. Arthur then became the 21st President of the United States. But who was Chester A. Arthur, and where did he come from? That is what this post will now attempt to explain.

Chester A. Arthur

Rutherford B. Hayes: Entering office by a margin of one electoral vote

Reconstruction had been going on for twelve years, when Mr. Hayes became president

When the Civil War ended in 1865, it was followed by another violent period of postwar reconstruction. Some historians have even described the Reconstruction Era as a sort of “Second Civil War,” and this may actually be accurate. During the early phases of Reconstruction, Rutherford B. Hayes (who was, by then, a Republican) had supported his party’s attempts to bring order to the South. But the violence was ongoing, and Republicans were starting to lose support for maintaining the presence of federal troops in the South. It was a bit like the later Vietnam War, which lost American support as the war dragged on without an end in sight. The Republican president Ulysses S. Grant had thus been forced to retreat somewhat, in his efforts to keep federal troops there. General Grant completed two full terms as president, but was not then seeking a third term of office. Thus, in 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes became the Republicans’ new presidential candidate. He faced Samuel J. Tilden, a Democrat from New York. It would be one of the most controversial elections in American history.

Rutherford B. Hayes in Civil War uniform in 1861

A review of Michael Wood’s “In Search of Myths and Heroes”

“And when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon, she came to prove Solomon with hard questions at Jerusalem, with a very great company, and camels that bare spices, and gold in abundance, and precious stones: and when she was come to Solomon, she communed with him of all that was in her heart.”

– “The Second Book of the Chronicles,” Chapter 9, Verse 1 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

History is filled with great stories – some of which can be true, and others of which are probably just myths and legends. But even many of the false ones can be important for the history, because they’ve been so fervently believed for such a long time. The mere fact that they’re believed at all is an important part of the history, even if it must sometimes be contended with by the “serious historians” when it’s wrong. Regardless, this documentary is a miscellaneous collection of four great myths and legends, which I will describe shortly. They go from Europe and Asia … to Africa and Arabia, and the first one is the Queen of Sheba.

William Howard Taft: Made and un-made by Theodore Roosevelt

William Howard Taft has now become little more than a footnote to the larger story of Theodore Roosevelt. When we hear Taft’s name today, it tends to be in connection either with Theodore Roosevelt, or with their mutual enemy Woodrow Wilson. But, in the early twentieth century, William Howard Taft was more than just an intervening figure between these two political giants. Taft was a reform-minded candidate, who was much more similar to Roosevelt … than Roosevelt himself would later give him credit for. William Howard Taft is known in part for his rotundity, and for being the only person to become both president and Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court. Thus, an examination of Mr. Taft’s story might be in order here. This will provide us some insight into the United States, and into the twentieth century more generally.

William Howard Taft

Air power in the World Wars: From “expensive toy” to a serious weapon

“There are a lot of people who say that bombing can never win a war. Well, my answer to that is that it has never been tried yet, and we shall see.”

– Royal Air Force general Sir Arthur Harris (a.k.a. “Bomber” Harris), in a speech given in 1942 (during World War Two)

In 1903, the Wright brothers showed the world that “man really can fly” (to paraphrase Dieter F. Uchtdorf). As Wikipedia puts it, Orville and Wilbur Wright made “the first controlled, sustained flight of a powered, heavier-than-air aircraft with the Wright Flyer on December 17, 1903, four miles (6 km) south of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, at what is now known as Kill Devil Hills.” (see source) Planes have since been used for scientific and commercial reasons, but they have also been an important part of warfare for more than a century now. They have altered the way that warfare has been fought, on both the land and the sea. The history of military aviation is one of conflict between carrier and battleship theories, between heavy bombing and close air support theories, and other changes in military strategy and tactics. I freely confess that I’m no expert on any kind of aviation, but my paternal grandfather was well-versed in the subject, and taught me some of what he knew about it. This post will thus focus on aviation in the two massive World Wars, particularly as used by the United States. This was my grandfather’s biggest area of historical expertise.

German biplane shot down by the Americans in the Argonne, 1918 (during World War One)

Colonial Canada: From the Seven Years’ War to the War of 1812

“An Act for making more effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec in North America …”

– Long title of the “Quebec Act, 1774” (French: Acte de Québec de 1774), as passed by the British Parliament – remembered by the United States as one of the “Intolerable Acts”

How do Canadians remember the conflicts between the English, the French, and the Americans? As it turns out, the Canadians remember these conflicts somewhat differently than we do. They were a crucible for Canada, as they were for the United States – and its various colonial predecessors. Canada stayed a colony for a lot longer than we did, so there are at least three major conflicts during its colonial history. These conflicts are (in order) the Seven Years’ War, the American War of Independence, and the “War of 1812” (as it is usually called). Some of these conflicts are more often remembered in Canada than in the United States. One of these wars still creates controversy in Canada today, more than two centuries later. Thus, this might be a good time to talk about Colonial Canada, and how it was shaped by the trials of its early wars.

Engraving from the Battle of the Plains of Abraham – Quebec, 1759

Napoleon’s 1812 invasion of Russia led to his downfall

“From the day of exchanging the ratification of the present treaties, there shall be perfect peace and amity between his majesty the emperor of the French [Napoleon], king of Italy, and his majesty the emperor of all the Russias.”

– “Treaty of Tilsit, 7 July 1807,” between Napoleon Bonaparte of France and “Alexander the First” of Russia – a treaty which was soon broken in 1812, when Napoleon invaded Russia

In 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte came to the throne of France. He was the victor of campaigns in the “French Revolutionary Wars,” and must have seemed truly “invincible.” But his world came crashing down all around him, when his forces were defeated while invading Russia in 1812. How did all of this happen? How did the most powerful man in Europe become a prisoner in St. Helena by 1815 – later to die as a prisoner in 1821? How did the Russian people rally against the French (and other invaders) in this campaign? And what do certain prior events in the Napoleonic Wars, such as Russia’s twice switching sides in that conflict, tell us about Napoleon’s invasion of Russia? In this post, I will try to answer these questions. I will show how the larger “Napoleonic Wars” turned around in this massive Russian campaign. And I will show how Napoleon’s downfall owed much to his being routed by the Russians during this invasion.

Paul the First of Russia

Color movies are great, but so are black-and-white movies

Why one should consider watching classic black-and-white movies

This might seem a strange way to start this post, but there is a decades-long international interest in World War II. People in many nations are fascinated by the greatest shooting war of the twentieth century – and, arguably, of all time. Thus, there’s a strong subculture that’s interested in the real footage of the war. Some of that footage is in color, but much of it is instead in black-and-white. Nonetheless, people watch it anyway, because they want to see some of what the real thing looked like. It’s one of the few historical subjects that is not stigmatized as “nerdy,” because it continues to enjoy such a great following. This shows that there is still some interest in black-and-white photography, both of the moving and non-moving (or “still”) kinds. But the younger generation often has no interest in old movies, particularly when they are in black-and-white. They’ve been raised in a culture of color movies, many of which really are quite good. But I believe that there are a lot of old movies that are worth watching, too. This post will try to explain some of the reasons why.

Clark Gable and Doris Day together in “Teacher’s Pet” (1958)

Benjamin Harrison: A president whose grandfather was another president

Benjamin Harrison’s grandfather was William Henry Harrison, who was the ninth president of the United States. This grandfather had served as president for 31 days in 1841. But William Henry Harrison had died of natural causes after only this month in office. William Henry Harrison had enjoyed a distinguished career as a general, especially in the War of 1812. But the grandfather, William Henry Harrison, did not live long enough to make much of a difference as president. By contrast, Benjamin Harrison would eventually serve out a full term as president. He never won the popular vote, but he still defeated the incumbent president Grover Cleveland anyway. Again, Benjamin Harrison served a full term before his fatal rematch with Grover Cleveland. Where did Benjamin Harrison come from? How did he become the 23rd President of the United States? And what exactly is Benjamin Harrison’s legacy? These are the questions that this post will attempt to answer, however briefly.

Benjamin Harrison

The Napoleonic Wars: A series of several coalitions and conflicts

The Napoleonic Wars lasted for twelve years, with a death toll in the millions …

The Napoleonic Wars lasted for twelve years, with a death toll in the millions. They are among the most defining conflicts in European history. But most Americans know very little about them, even though they crossed the Atlantic on more than one occasion. Most importantly, they hit the United States in the “War of 1812,” which actually ended in 1815. Thus, it might be helpful to examine the defining European conflict of the early nineteenth century. It has origins in the French Revolution, and in the life of Napoleon Bonaparte himself. He came to power some years before these wars that bear his name. Thus, an overview of the domestic “French Revolution” might be in order here, to show how it affected Napoleon … and, in so many ways, also affected the world at large.

French victory over the Prussians at the Battle of Valmy, 1792

Herbert Hoover: More interventionist than he’s remembered

How much of the blame for the Great Depression belongs to Herbert Hoover?

Herbert Hoover had been president for only seven months, when the American stock market crashed in October of 1929. The Wall Street Crash of ‘29, sometimes called the “Great Crash,” is often marked as the beginning of the Great Depression. But this nation has had several other stock market crashes in its long history, and recovered much more quickly from most of these other crashes. Thus, I’m not entirely convinced that the 1929 Crash is what “caused” the Depression, although it was certainly a catastrophe of gargantuan proportions. Regardless, Herbert Hoover got the blame for the crash, and for the truly Great Depression that soon followed it. Many homeless Americans then lived in shanty towns that came to be called “Hoovervilles,” named (with some bitterness) after him. But how much of the blame does Herbert Hoover really deserve for this (and he does indeed deserve some)? What is the legacy of Herbert Hoover’s presidency? And just where did Mr. Hoover come from? These are the questions that this post will attempt to answer.

Herbert Hoover

A review of Michael Wood’s “In Search of the Trojan War”

“The gods deliberate in council concerning the Trojan war: they agree upon the continuation of it, and Jupiter sends down Minerva to break the truce. She persuades Pandarus to aim an arrow at Menelaus, who is wounded, but cured by Machaon. In the meantime some of the Trojan troops attack the Greeks.”

– Homer’s “Iliad,” Book 4 (as translated by Alexander Pope)

Was the “Trojan War” real, or just a myth? A historian investigates to find out …

Was the “Trojan War” real, or just a myth? In this program, historian Michael Wood investigates to find out. We know that the Ancient Greeks believed in the Trojan War, because they were great admirers of the “Iliad” and the “Odyssey” – probably written by the Greek poet Homer around the eighth century BC. In the “Iliad,” Homer recounts the story of the “Trojan War,” which he placed some centuries earlier than his own time. Some would say that this conflict has never existed outside the pages of the “Iliad.” Others believe that there is a kernel of truth in certain parts of these stories.

A review of Ken Burns’ “Hemingway” (PBS)

“Writing, at its best, is a lonely life. Organizations for writers palliate the writer's loneliness but I doubt if they improve his writing. He grows in public stature as he sheds his loneliness and often his work deteriorates. For he does his work alone and if he is a good enough writer he must face eternity, or the lack of it, each day.”

– Ernest Hemingway, in his acceptance speech for the 1954 Nobel Prize for Literature

Ken Burns delivers a stellar (and moving) biography of a great American author

Before watching this film, my only experience with Ernest Hemingway was watching the 1996 film “In Love and War,” which dramatizes both his experiences in World War One and his brief romance with Agnes von Kurowsky (played therein by Sandra Bullock). Admittedly, this was a fairly limited acquaintance with the man, and I still haven’t read any of his works. But I knew of his influence, and was willing to try just about any film made by Ken Burns, despite my admitted literary ignorance. I was a great admirer of his earlier film about Mark Twain, despite having a similar ignorance about Mark Twain and his works. Thus, I set out to record my reaction to Ken Burns’ “Hemingway” in this post.

A review of Michael Wood’s “In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great”

“Whilst the Amphictyonic confederacy remained, that of the Achaeans, which comprehended the less important cities only, made little figure on the theatre of Greece. When the former became a victim to Macedon, the latter was spared by the policy of Philip and Alexander [the Great].”

– Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 18)

One of the greatest conquerors in history, whose empire stretched from Greece to India …

He was one of the greatest conquerors in history, whose empire stretched from Greece to India. Before he reached age 30, Alexander the Great created a massive empire that would include much of the world, as it was known to the Mediterraneans in his time. Our best sources for his expedition include two histories, both written some centuries after the time of Alexander. One of these two historians was Greek, while the other was a Roman. But Alexander was a Macedonian. The Macedonian language no longer exists today, but it was definitely related to Greek. Some have even considered the Macedonians to be “Greeks” themselves. The host of this program sometimes seems to think so. But the Macedonians did not consider themselves to be “Greeks.” Nor did the self-identified “Greeks” consider the Macedonians to be Greeks. Nonetheless, it is true that the Macedonians spread Greek culture to a then-unprecedented extent. Nothing would spread Greek culture so widely again until the advent of the Roman Empire, which was some centuries later. I thought that it might have been helpful for the host to clarify this issue, even with a brief sentence or two. But this is actually a truly great film despite this omission.

A review of “20th Century European Philosophy” (audiobook)

I already thought that twentieth-century Western philosophy was a vast wasteland, before I ever listened to this audiobook. But I listened to this audiobook with an open mind, because I wanted to better understand the history of philosophy. After listening to this audiobook, my worst fears seemed to be confirmed therein. It is hard for me to imagine a greater disaster area than the philosophies of the twentieth century.

A review of Henry David Thoreau’s “On Civil Disobedience” (audiobook)

“I heartily accept the motto,—‘That government is best which governs least;’ and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—‘That government is best which governs not at all;’ and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.”

– Henry David Thoreau’s “On Civil Disobedience” (published 1849)

In 1846, the American writer Henry David Thoreau refused to pay a tax to support his country’s then-ongoing war with Mexico. He believed that the war was not only unjust in and of itself, but that it would even create new territory into which slavery could expand (a real danger at that time). His fears were not unfounded, and had some sympathetic aspects to them. But they prompted him to write one of the most influential attacks on government ever printed. He lived in an era when government in the United States was already quite small – far smaller than it is today. But Thoreau was suspicious of the idea of having any government at all, and said so in “On Civil Disobedience” (as quoted above).

Henry David Thoreau

A review of PBS’s “The Circus” (American Experience)

PBS did a four-hour television history of the circus (and they weren’t clowning around) …

In 2017, Hollywood released a movie that reminded people of a much earlier form of entertainment than its own movies. The movie was “The Greatest Showman,” starring Hugh Jackman as P. T. Barnum – the owner of a circus. The circus was popular in many areas of the Western world, but it seems to have been founded in England, and reached its greatest heights in the fledgling United States. The word comes from the Latin “circus,” associated with the Roman circus – a somewhat barbaric predecessor. The Roman circus saw vicious chariot races that could be violent and brutal, dramatized in movies like “Ben-Hur.” The American circus saw some risks of its own, although it seems safe to say that it was far less hazardous than its Roman counterpart. Entire towns could be shut down on the days when the circus pulled into town, because people wanted to spend their hard-earned money to attend it. People would even take their children, although they were often concerned that their children would “run away to the circus” – a metaphor for getting involved with seedy and unsavory company, and sometimes a literal statement.

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.