A review of “Rebels & Redcoats: How Britain Lost America”

“... That the said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain; and that the King's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever … ”

– American Colonies Act 1766 (better known as the “Declaratory Act”), as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain

A British view of the American Revolution, which is somewhat different from our own ...

This documentary has much to admire, and much to disagree with. Its opening credits advertise it as “A British View,” and this title is certainly accurate. I picked it up hoping to hear the other side of this war, and I was not disappointed. However, it also has some weaknesses which I will note here. To be fair, it is actually fairly balanced regarding the military campaigns, but it is also somewhat less than balanced regarding some of the politics of this war. The British filmmaker Richard Holmes is a genuine military historian, and has a deep knowledge of military strategy and tactics. He has a gift for bringing the human drama of these campaigns to life. He has the ability to make you sympathize with both sides to some degree. But when it comes to the political issues of this war (and there are quite a few of them), he shows that he is not very well-versed in the politics of the Revolution. He compares people like Samuel Adams to Marx and Lenin, and it is clear that this comparison is meant to be unflattering (and not a comparison that is meant to be complimentary, as it might be if spoken by someone else).

Giving Congress the power to coin money was a break with British precedents

“The coining of money is in all states the act of the sovereign power; for the reason just mentioned, that it's value may be known on inspection.”

– William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 7

You might expect that in the Founding Fathers' time, the British Constitution would place the power of coining money into the Parliament. If so, you'd be wrong – in their time, it was the British monarchy that had this power, and the related power to regulate “weights and measures” as well. By contrast, the Constitution of the United States said that the Congress shall have the power to “coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures” (Source: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5). The Constitution thus vests these powers in the legislative branch, rather than the executive branch. This was a major break with British tradition.

To illustrate this, I will quote from a source that was used by a number of our Founding Fathers. This source is William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (better known as Blackstone's “Commentaries”), which was used specifically by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. (All quotations from Blackstone's “Commentaries” in this particular post are from Book 1, Chapter 7, so I will not note this every time.) Everything in the first volume, including this chapter, was written in 1765.

Sir William Blackstone

How to write a killer history paper

You've probably heard of the six “journalist's questions”: who, what, when, where, how, and why. To a large degree, they are also the historian's questions; and may be good things to know about before you write that great paper about history.

Thus, I will spend some time here on each one of them, and show you the issues that might be raised by any one of them. You might not have to answer all six of them for every one of your papers, but giving some thought to each of them is not necessarily a bad idea, and might make the difference between a hit paper and a miss paper.

What's the difference between the presidency and the prior British monarchy?

“The supreme executive power of these kingdoms is vested by our laws in a single person, the king or queen : for it matters not to which sex the crown descends ; but the person entitled to it, whether male or female, is immediately invested with all the ensigns, rights, and prerogatives of sovereign power ; as is declared by statute 1 Mar. st. 3. c. 1.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 3

Americans discarded monarchy during their Revolution

In prior times, British laws vested the “supreme executive power” of the kingdoms into a “single person, the king or queen.” (Source: Blackstone's “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 3) The constitutional monarchy of Britain now has very little power today; but then, it was a force to be reckoned with. Blackstone further wrote that “With us therefore in England this supreme power is divided into two branches; the one legislative, to wit, the parliament, consisting of king, lords, and commons; the other executive, consisting of the king alone.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) Thus, the king was technically considered a part of the parliament with the “lords and commons”; although these two houses of Parliament did have a few checks on him in return. (All quotations from Blackstone in this post are from the “Commentaries,” so I will not note this every time.) As Blackstone wrote, the executive branch was “consisting of the king alone.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 2) When America was created, one of its most radical departures from British tradition was the total discarding of any form of monarchy. Monarchy was incredibly unpopular in the thirteen states at this time. Thomas Paine expressed this attitude well when he said: “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” (Source: “Common Sense,” Chapter III) Thus, America had a president instead; declaring in its Constitution that “The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold office during the term of four years ... ” (Source: Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 1)

The White House

How did the Founding Fathers use Blackstone's writings about the monarchy?

“The office of president is treated with levity and intimated to be a machine calculated for state pageantry. Suffer me to view the commander of the fleets and armies of America, with a reverential awe, inspired by the contemplation of his great prerogatives, though not dignified with the magic name of King, he will possess more supreme power, than Great Britain allows her hereditary monarchs, who derive ability to support an army from annual supplies, and owe the command of one to an annual mutiny law. The American president may be granted supplies for two years, and his command of a standing army is unrestrained by law or limitation.”

– An anonymous letter signed “Tamony,” dated 20 December 1787

Tamony argued that presidents would possess more “supreme power” than monarchs …

During the ratification debates, an anonymous letter to “The Virginia Independent Chronicle” feared that the president would become more powerful than a monarch. He said that the president, “though not dignified with the magic name of King, he will possess more supreme power, than Great Britain allows her hereditary monarchs” (Source: text of the letter). These fears, though unfounded, were actually quite typical of many of the opponents of the Constitution at this time. This letter was actually dated 20 December 1787, but it was not printed in “The Virginia Independent Chronicle” until 9 January 1788. Later, it was reprinted in “The Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer” on 1 February 1788; and was soon after seen by Alexander Hamilton in that Pennsylvania paper. Because Alexander Hamilton saw the version printed in Philadelphia, he would later refer to the author in the Federalist Papers as “A writer in a Pennsylvania paper, under the signature of TAMONY” (Source: Footnote to Federalist No. 69). As you might expect, Alexander Hamilton disagreed with the author of this letter on this point; and offered a response to him in the Federalist Papers. To bolster his case, he actually cited Blackstone's “Commentaries,” a prestigious legal work from that time. There is an irony in this, I might add here, since William Blackstone had actually opposed the American Revolution until his death in 1780. Nonetheless, Hamilton considered him worth citing in the Federalist Papers anyway, and proceeded to debunk Tamony's argument with some quotes from Blackstone's “Commentaries.”

Alexander Hamilton

A review of the BBC's “The Story of Maths” (by Marcus du Sautoy)

“Maths is the true language that the universe is written in – the key to understanding the world around us.”

– Marcus du Sautoy, in the conclusion of this series

In America, we often shorten the word “mathematics” to just “math.” In Britain, they retain the pluralization of “mathematics” to make it “maths,” even when shortening it in this way. Thus, no one from Britain would ever be likely to say just “math,” and would probably consider it an Americanism that would sound a little strange to them. But whatever you call it, I've been tutoring people in the subject since 2012, as a professional “math” tutor (and I am an American, as you may have guessed from my spelling of this word).

Some thoughts about math education

“4 out of 3 people struggle with math.”

– A joke of unknown origin

As some of you know, I've been a professional math tutor since 2012. This is the first post where I've really talked much about my job. (I may or may not do others on this subject.)