History Book Reviews

Rebellion, Persecution, or Both?

2026-06-19T19:18:21.100-04:00

A review of Jill Lepore’s New York Burning: Liberty, Slavery, and Conspiracy in Eighteenth-Century Manhattan (2005)

Jill Lepore’s New York Burning is about a little-known story in American colonial history. It is an amazing story that should be better known. In the middle of 18^th century Manhattan, a generation before the American Revolution and a few decades after the Salem Witch trials, a different type of hysteria was taking place. The belief of an organized slave rebellion that was going to lead to the burning of the city, the murder of the most the white populace, and the establishment of a black dominated new society to replace it.

This led to the arrest over a hundred seventy people and later execution of over thirty people, often by burning at the stake. Like with the Salem Witch Trials a lot of the accusations came from the few against the many. Confessions that themselves were coerced. As part of their conspiracy these rebels were going to install their leader, a white tavern keeper named John Hughson, as their King. King John would then appoint the slave Caesar as his governor and declare Catholicism the new state religion.

The fate of New York

“What those eighty-one New Yorkers confessed to was a plot dripping with plot, ripe to bursting with familiar characters and contrivances. Smith delivered his speech in the very era in which the novel was born; not surprisingly, his argument echoed conventions established not only in early English novels but also in England’s vast store of quasi-fictional tales of rogues and pirates, whores, and mutinies, and ruthless gangs of highway robbers, as well as in growing literature of alarming reports from the colonies of rebellious slaves and bloodthirsty Indians.” (pg.10)
Trial, but not fair

One hand the plot seems like a downright bizarre fiction made up of over imaginative 18^th century white people. Of course, the slave rebellion would have to be led by a white man, in their common world view there is no way a black man could have been their leader. The recognizable fear of the rival Christian religion of Catholicism. However, unlike the witch trials, which were absurd as witches are not real, slaves do not want to be slaves. The idea that they will rebel is not a crazy conclusion to come up with in a society that practices slavery.

“Plots to burn the metropolis flowed freely across the Atlantic, and up and down the seaboard. When they were true, they were terrifying. When they were delusions, they were droll. In June 1738, New Yorkers received word that Jamaicans had been deluded by ‘a Discovery of a Plot concerted by the Negroes at Kingston, but by good Information, we find it to be no more than intended Meeting, to drink the Memory of an old Negro Felow, dead some time agoe, whom they used to call their King.’” (pg. 56)
brutal executions

In modern times a slave rebellion is cheered not frowned upon. So, for the modern readers we are curious to see if there was any truth here. Was there steaming beneath the surface an actual attempt by the oppressed to overthrow their oppressors? It is hard to say, it would not have been uncommon for there to be one. However, it would not have been anything like the disaster that we saw in New York.

“If there was nothing else to be learned from the confession extracted in New York City in the spring and summer of 1741, there would be this: while slaves in Manhattan lived and worked alongside whites, they sought out other slaves, for news, for companionship, for love, and they found it, all over the city. Forever conducting errands, fetching water, visiting friends and family scattered across the city, slaves circulated, even more than free whites, who lived in the same house as their husbands, wives, and children.” (pg. 149)

Lepore’s main primary source is the writing of Daniel Horsmanden one of the main investigators into the conspiracy. From him Lepore is able to piece together a narrative of an involving mystery. Now I did enjoy this book better than her previous work on King Philip's War, however the narrative still goes down lots of rabbit holes that were not entirely relevant to the main event. For example, I find Francis Williams the Jamaican scholar interesting but I am not sure that he had to do with the rest of the story. The book is worth reading regardless.

[Video is from the YouTube channel Raw American History]

IMAGES OF AMERICA

2026-06-17T16:42:11.786-04:00

A review of Alan Brinkley’s Eyes of the Nation: A Visual History of the United States (2001)

(Rating 4 of 5)

This will a short review because I don’t have much to say about this book. This is not to say the book is bad for it is very much good. However, it does give cause for me to write much. That can be a good sign usually when I have a lot to say something that means something is usually highly objectionable generating a lot of words in response. When I am reviewing a biographical work, I tend to try to look at the subject in the same way the author did in order to properly evaluate the author’s material.

Virginia map

This book divides American History, from the Columbian Exchange right up to the end of 20^th century, into seven separate chapters. The first few chapters cover a couple of centuries where the remaining five are measured in decades. Each has a written sections that explains the period of history that it covers before going into the visual aspect which is why people bought the book. The written pieces, as one can easily imagine, is overly broad and I do not fine anything objectional about them. The visual pieces are amazing and contain great images.

Normandy landings

The only complaint I have about this book has nothing to do with author but the publisher of my copy. The Chapter 4 write up which goes from pg.129-144 is duplicated. So, after pg.144 it is suddenly 129 again not 145. You do not get to 145 until you go by it a second time. It was quite a shock as I read one chapter a sitting. I started into the duplicated chapter and read about three pages before I realized what had happened. The image part was not repeated so I skipped to that. I was pleased and I remember wondering after reading chapter 4 the first time why there was no images section like in the earlier chapter. Considering that was the chapter the covered the time period from 1850-1870 I was glad that turned out to be a corrected mistake.

MALCOLM X IS HIS OWN WORDS

2026-06-13T16:15:05.345-04:00

A review of The Autobiography of Malcolm X As Told To Alex Haley (1965) (1999, my copy)

(Rating 5 of 5)

The Autobiography of Malcolm X is one of the great American political works of the 20^th century. It is quite an intimidating to review given so much has been said about the book that it makes it difficult to try to contribute something original. The book was assembled from a series of interviews that Malcolm X had with journalist and author Alex Haley.

Having a professional writer, it naturally raises the question of filter or embellishment. How much of this is this Malcolm X’s natural story or how much has been sensationalized by Haley. Fortunately, Haley put a rather lengthy epilogue in which he explains his working relationship with Malcolm X and how this book was assembled. In that epilogue, Haley discusses the challenges of getting his approval for chapters in which he praises Elijah Muhammad, during a time when Malcolm X’s conflict with Muhammad was at its height. After reading the epilogue I feel with a great deal of confidence that story presented is the authentic and genuine story of Malcolm X in his own words.

Alex Haley

The story has smooth narrative that gives the reader the feeling of actually being in room with Malcolm X as he explains his life to you. It reminds me of the narrative that the reader gets when they read The Autobiography of Ulysses S Grant. There is something about the narrator stopping for some human moment that the reader can easily relate to. For example, during his hustler days he came to a moment of indecision as he wondered about a task that was sure he completed but suddenly formed doubts. He then asks the reader if they have experienced anything the same, which obnoxiously the reader cannot answer him, but it does allow them to feel a connection.

Malcolm X begins talking about his life growing up with his parents who were followers of the Black Nationalist movement of Marcus Garvey. His father, Earl Little, is killed by a gang of white racists known as the Black Legion. His mother, Louise, is left as a single parent. Eventually the pressures of being a single parent in a huge family, losing a spouse to murder, being denied the full insurance payout, and being undermined and not helped by the state caused her to have a mental breakdown that she never recovered. As a result, her children went into foster care. Malcolm X visited her years later and she didn’t know who he was.

“I can’t describe how I felt. The woman who had brought me into the world, and nursed me, and advised me, and chastised me, and loved me, didn’t know me. It was as if I was trying to walk up the side of a hill of feathers. I looked at her. I listened to her “talk.” But there was nothing I could do.

I truly believe that if ever a state social agency destroyed a family, it destroyed ours. We wanted and tried to stay together. Out home didn’t have to be destroyed. But Welfare, the courts, and their doctor gave us a one-two-three punch. And ours was not the only case of this kind.” (pg. 22)
parents

Malcolm X does rather well in foster care. Still going by the name Malcolm Little that he will keep until his conversion in 1950. He attended an integrated school in the north that was primarily white. Despite that he was really popular with his classmates and even elected class president. It wasn’t until a conversation with his school guidance counselor that became a factor in the change of his direction in life. When he said that he wanted to be a lawyer the man shot that down and told him using the N-word that since he was black, he had to be more realistic. He encouraged him to try to get a job in the domestic field.

Malcolm X as child

In many ways it’s the conversation with the guidance counselor that I find the most disturbing part of the book. As someone who works in education it breaks my heart to see a smart promising young student have his dreams dashed without even being allowed to try. I am still not sure how I am supposed to feel about this guidance counselor. When discussing white people in his youth who use the N-word Malcolm X breaks them up into two categories, hateful racists and well-meaning ignorant people. The second group is made up of people who probably wouldn’t use the N-word if they grew up in a different time period. I am not sure about the guidance counselor. One on hand I can understand him not wanting to mislead the student about the realities of the world into which he is entering. Nevertheless, I feel that he still could have gone about it in a better way. There were African-American lawyers back then; it would have been hard for him but not impossible.

I enjoyed Malcolm X’s telling of his hustler days in New York because it was the section of the book where I learned the most. As the reader, you got to see what the underside of New York City looked like in the 1940s. It is interesting that the underworld was one of the most integrated places in the country. Here the then Malcolm Little goes by the nickname “Detroit Red.” He befriends and works as an enforcer for a number of pimps. He participates in fencing with a fellow Black man and a couple of White women. He has a number of different women in his life.

The biggest thing I learned that never would have even guess existed unless a read this book was the “conk,” a type straightening method that African-American men used to alter the hairs appearance from its natural state to a more “white” look. It was a process that was painful and could result in serious injury to the scalp. After reading this I did go through some old pictures of African-American men in the first half of the 20^th century to see if I could spot it.

Hustler days with "conk" hairstyle

His hustling days came to an end when he and his group of thieves were caught, tried, and sent to prison. Now for most people going to prison would be rather bad thing, but Malcolm found himself there and would later reflect that his prison time was important part of his life. While imprisoned he was able to get the education that he had been denied so many years ago. He even notes at times that if he had gone to a traditional college, he may have been distracted by all that goes on in a community that a university offers. In prison he was forced to read and he managed to give himself quite the education. He read a lot of history and hearing of the horrors that people of his racial background went through radicalized his politics.

“I will never forget how shocked I was when I began reading about slavery’s total horror. It made such an impact on me that it later became one of my favorite subjects when I became a minister of Mr. Muhammad’s. The world’s most monstrous crime, the sin and the blood on the white man’s hands, are almost impossible to believe. Books like the one by Frederick Olmstead opened my eyes to the horrors suffered when the slave landed in the United States. The European woman, Fannie Kimball, who had married a southern white slave owner, described how human beings were degraded. Of course I read Uncle Tom’s Cabin. In fact I believe that is the only novel I have ever read since I started serious reading.” (p.179)

While imprison his brother Reginald introduced to him with his letters and visits the religion called the Nation of Islam. Up into this point Malcolm X had been so openly atheist his fellow inmates nicknamed him Satan. It is at this point where he ceases to be Malcolm Little and embraced his identity of Malcolm X. Their leader Elijah Muhammad had his followers drop their surnames as these were just imposed on their ancestors by white slave masters.

Elijah Muhammad

With his new religious identity, the reader can clearly see some of the good and bad that comes from religion. It gave Malcolm X an instant community to come home to, it helped generate self-worth, and it gave him a purpose. It also made him believe rather ridiculous things such as white people were created by a mad scientist thousands of years ago.

Malcolm X during public career

Armed with his new faith, Malcolm X makes a lot of lifestyle changes to accommodate it such as giving up pork and cigarettes. When he gets out of prison, he meets Elijah Muhammad and becomes a minister for the NOI. He then embarks on the work that would make him world famous. He would grow the NOI amongst the African-American community and in doing so challenge the white establishment that would be standing in his way. To so would not only make enemies of white America but it would also bring him into conflict with the active civil rights leaders.

“My decision came relatively quickly. I have always been an activist, and my personal chemistry perhaps made me reach more quickly than most minsters in the Nation of Islam that stage of dedication. But ever minister in the Nation, in his own time, in his own way, in the privacy of his own soul, came to the conviction that is was written that all of his “before” life had become conditioning and preparation to become a disciple of Mr. Muhammad’s.” (p. 215)

With Malcolm X as its most popular minister, the Nation of Islam experienced a swelling of its ranks. It would multiple several times over. However, in many ways his success would also be his undoing within the Nation. Despite the fact that he had always presented himself as “representative of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad,” Malcolm X was by far the most visible Black Muslim and this would seem to create a jealousy in Muhammad. Malcolm X also discovered that Muhammad had several sexual indiscretions fathering illegitimate children with former secretaries. When Malcolm X gave his infamous “chickens come home to roust” remarks in the wake of the Kennedy assignation, Muhammad took the opportunity to silence him.

This however ultimately just pushed him away. After being contacted by more mainstream Muslims he starts to re-examine his own faith. With that he leaves the NOI and becomes a Sunni Muslim. With help of his sister, Ella^{^[1]}, he goes on a pilgrimage to Mecca required by all Muslims who are able. There he refines a lot of his political views. Where before he advocated for Black separation and supremacy, he now advocated for a universal brotherhood. He never stopped attacking white supremacy for what it was though and would continue calls for a strong revolutionary change. He adopted a new name El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, although he never legally changed it.

“White society hates to hear anybody, especially a black man, talk about the crime the white man had perpetrated on the black man. I have always understood that’s why I have been so frequently called ‘a revolutionist.’ It sounds as if I have done some crime! Well, it may be that American black man does need to become involved with a real revolution. The word for ‘revolution’ in German is Umwalzung. What it means is a compete overturn—a complete change. The overthrow of King Farouk in Egypt and the succession of President Nasser is an example of a true revolution. It means the destroying of an old system, and its replacement with a new system.” (p374)

The NOI never stopped giving him trouble however. Since the Nation owned the house, he lived in with his wife Betty and their daughters, they evicted them and even fire-bombed the place when he did not leave. His life ended when he was assassinated by members of the NOI. Just recently it was uncovered that the US Government had information that that was going to happen and did nothing to stop it.

At civil rights rally

Legendary actor Ossie Davis who eulogized Malcolm X has a written response to question posed by a magazine editor to why he performed that action. I find the piece very prophetic when he explains who he thinks Malcolm X will be remembered. Davis makes an analogy to John Brown.

“But even had Malcolm not change, he would still have been a relevant figure on the American scene, standing in relation as he does, to the ‘responsible’ civil rights leaders, just about where John Brown stood in relation to the ‘responsible’ abolitionists in the fight against slavery. Almost all disagreed with Brown’s mad and fanatical tactics which led him foolishly to attack a Federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, to lose two sons there, and later be hanged for treason.

Yet, today the world, and especially the Negro people, proclaim that Brown not a traitor, but a hero and a martyr in a noble cause. So in future, I will not be surprised if men come to see that Malcolm X was, within his own limitations, and in his own inimitable style, also a martyr in that cause.” (p.466)

This prediction has certainly come to pass. Malcolm X is certainly more popular today than he ever was in his own time. In the book he and Alex Haley go over a poll taken among African-Americans about who they thought was the most important leader in their community. The poll revealed both that Dr. King was at the top and he, Malcolm X, barley registered. He acknowledged that a lot of that was his fault for as a minster of the NOI they were not supposed to get involved with politics outside of their group. They would take bold stands in support of their members, as in the incident when one of them named Hinton Johnson had been beaten by the police during an arrest causing Malcolm X to lead companies of his fellow Muslims to the police station and demanded their member be taken to a hospital. However, when it came to doing something for the oppression of others, they would do nothing similar. They talked a big game about white oppression but with the intention of getting potential members to turn their back on mainstream society and embrace their group. On the one major issue of the day that was most important to African-Americans: integration, the NOI was opposed. Their stand would even earn them the respect of white nationalists such as the KKK and George Lincoln Rockwell.

One of things that Malcolm X tries stress at the end of his book, although he repudiated Black Supremacy and Nationalism (while still holding White society to account) he hopes that his readers will be able to understand why it was such an ideology would have naturally appealed to someone with his life experiences and situation. My assessment as a reader is in that respect this book is truly successful. His main achievement with this book is he does show the reader why his world view became his world view, not only in why he embraced the NOI but also why he held some other controversial views that are still controversial. For example, his view on Jewish people and women in general, he clearly explains to the reader why he has such views in a way that the reader can understand and sympathize with while still not embracing them. I would strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in autobiographies of important historical figures.

[Video is from British Films Institute]

[1] Ella Little-Collins is one of the more fascinating characters you get to meet in this book. She led a life almost as interesting as her brother’s.

AN EYE INTO 19TH CENTURY AMERICAN SLAVERY

2026-06-08T23:19:20.687-04:00

A review of Frederick Douglass Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845) (1997, my copy)

(Rating 5 of 5)

Frederick Douglass’s account of his journey as a person born into slavery who ultimately escaped to freedom was published in 1845. It was the first time for many Americans, particularly those who would be mainstream voters, to see what American slavery was through the eyes of the enslaved. He did not paint a pretty picture. Douglass told tales of malnourishment, beatings with whips and other implements, forced illiteracy, and humans being bread for later sale when they were older.

When the book was first published it was attacked by southern slaveholders as forgery. No slave could write as elegant as the passages in this book. They were oppressing the enslaved population enough so they could be sure. However, they didn’t count on a former slave who used to be named Frederick Bailey, armed with a little bit of luck and lot more craftiness, actually learning to read and write without their knowledge and passing that ability on to others.

Southern slavery

Douglass’s target audience is the white population, particularly white men who could vote and impact the polices of the state and the federal governments. One of the ideas that he reiterates throughout his work is that while all slavery is evil there is a spectrum of evilness. Once you are enslaved it can still get worse for you. Sometimes it can get better but the place you were before is always a place you can be sent back to. During his enslavement Douglass experienced both ends of the extreme.

“I have often been utterly astonished, since I came to the north, to find persons who could speak of the singing, among slaves, as evidence of their contentment and happiness. It is impossible to conceive of a greater mistake. Slaves sing most when they are most unhappy. The songs of the slave represent the sorrows of his heart; and he is relieved by them, only as an aching heart is relieved by its tears. At least, such is my experience. I have often sung to drown my sorrow, and singing for joy, were alike uncommon to me while in the jaws of slavery. The singing of a man cast away upon a desolate island might be as appropriately considered as evidence of contentment and happiness, as the singing of a slave; the songs of the one and of the other are prompted by the same emotion” (pg.30)

Douglass was born on a planation on date he was never told. He was separated from his mother early on and his father was his owner. That man was Captain Aaron Anthony who worked as an overseer on the plantation where Douglass was enslaved. Despite being just the overseer, he did own a few of the slaves himself besides Douglass. While living on the planation Douglass and the other slaves were treated as if they were farm animals given little to eat, poor clothes to wear, and beatings if they complained. Then his owner/father died and he became the property of his half-sister Lucretia Auld, who then sent him to serve her brother-in-law and his wife, Hugh and Sophia Auld.

Plantation slavery

With this change his life instantly improved. He went from being treated like a farm animal to being treated more like a live-in butler. However, he was a butler who at any time could be sent back to be a farm animal. He credits the change of status to the change of venue. In a strange twist on the classical city mouse/country mouse, we have city slave/ country slave. In this case it seems the city slave has the better deal. Douglass points out that the slave/free population was reversed with the city having more free people. Rebellious slaves were less of a risk and mistreating or malnourishing a slave tended to invite judgement from neighbors. It is interesting point out that slave owner and US President James Madison also noted that slavery becomes more brutal the higher the slave population gets to the free population.

This is also where Douglass has some important lessons for his readers. All slaver holders were bad but there was a range of badness. The majority that Douglass encountered would have redeemable traits that he would notice. Then there were some who were just sadistically evil. Douglass argued that the reason that any slave owner is going to be bad is that the nature of owning a slave is a morally corruptible one. His analysis was similar to the saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The case of Sophia Auld is the one he gives as a prime example. Sophia Auld was from the North where there were no slaves. Slavery is new to her as she moved to Baltimore with her new husband. When she first meets Douglass, she treats him and all the other servants with kindness. She even begins teaching Douglass how to read. His reading lessons were cut short when her husband found out. Hugh Auld gave a speech to his wife where he reprimanded her behavior with the slaves. He explained teaching them to read would ruin them as slaves. The speech had an impact on both of them: Douglass resolved to learn to read, but Sophia went in another direction. When he tried to read newspapers, she would stanch them away. As time went on, although not overtly cruel Sophia Auld became a typical slave owner.

“But, alas! This kind heard had but a short time to remain such. The fatal poison of irresponsible power was already in her hands, and soon commenced its infernal work. That cheerful eye, under the influence of slavery, soon became red with rage; that voice, made all of sweet accord, changed to one of harsh and horrid discord; and that angelic face gave place to that of a demon.” (pg.46)

Still yearning to read Douglass had to go about it a different way. One of the advantages of now being a city-slave instead of being one on the plantation is Douglass had more freedom of movement as he could be sent on errands or even employed elsewhere so long as he gave his owners the money he earned. While traveling among the citizens of Baltimore he discovered an interesting truth that there were different classes of white people with some of them being very impoverished. These poor white citizens had freedom, literacy and a genuine hope their lot could improve all things Douglass himself was denied. However, he did have couple of things that they did not such as roof over his head and food security.

Martha Anne Atavis, enslaved in Baltimore to a family who she had to act as caretaker to their children, one is Alice in the picture

Armed with this knowledge, Douglass befriended some of these poor whites and offered a swap. He would give them the excess food that he has access to if they would give him reading lessons. It worked and Douglass was able to master reading. He doesn’t identify any of the white people that helped him as this book was published when they were still alive and could have faced both legal and social consequences if those in Baltimore learned who they were.

Now fully literate Douglass now wanted to expand that knowledge to his fellow slaves and had that opportunity when he was hired out to William Freeland. Freeland is described by Douglass as the least oppressive as all the white slave owners that he labored under. He was easy-going and not strict with the slaves. This gave Douglass an opportunity to teach a number of students and spread literacy throughout the plantation. This success was his undoing as it was discovered and his owner, Mr. Auld, decided to relocate Douglass from Mr. Freeman’s planation to the farm of Edward Covey.

Edward Covey was a farmer who was not well off enough to afford many slaves. However, he had a great many slaves from other slave owners who sent them to him often paying him to house them. They did this because Covey had a reputation for being a slave-breaker (they used a different word that Douglass does quote) who would train slaves through beating them to submission and once they were fully compliant sent them back to their owners. Thus, he got slave labor without actually having to buy it. There is even a disgusting scene of him breeding a young woman that he owns as a slave so he can sell her children.

Douglass suffered brutality under Covey. This lasted until a fellow slave named Sandy Jenkins, helped him make a totem from a certain root they found in the woods that he claimed would magically protect him from violence from white overseers. Douglass was skeptical of any magic, but it did have what we would call a placebo effect where having the totem gave him the courage to stand up to Covey. He did so and was able to defeat Covey in a fight and beat the crap out of him. Under ordinary circumstances this could have been a death sentence for Douglass however he had something working in his favor. Covey got free use of slaves because of his reputation for being able to bend them to his will. Had he formally charged Douglass he would have lost his reputation. It was in their best interest to keep this a secret.

“This battle with Mr. Covey was the turning point in my career as a slave. It rekindled the few expiring embers of freedom, and revived within me a sense of my own manhood. It recalled the departed self-confidence, and inspired me attain with a determination to be free.” (pg. 80-1)

After Douglass is sent back to live with the much more tolerable William Freeland, and this makes it easier to plan an escape. I have to say given that American slavery was still going to go on for another twenty years I am not sure it was wise of him to write all he did about Freeland. He was the most tolerable master he had and yet was under him that he began a mass literacy project and ultimately escaped. A slaver owner who reads this work might use it as a perverse how-to-guide in how to keep slaves in line. No kindness and maximize cruelty. I think it might have been smarter to say something like “Freeland was starting to take lessons from Covey, so I had to escape.” Then issue a correction in his later biographies.

The book ends with his finding freedom, changing his name from Bailey to Johnson to finally Douglass, and getting involved with the abolitionist movements. At the end of the book, he also makes a distinction between what he considers real Christianity and the Christianity of the slave holder, as not to offend non-slave holding Christians.

I highly recommend this book Douglass brings you right into the world of slavery as it existed in the 1800s. The book is simultaneously complex and easy to read. It is only 125 pages so you can get through it in a very short period of time. Sometimes it might take longer when going over some of the harder passages. However, the book ends on a very hopeful note.

[Video is a clip from The Story of US you can purchase it here.}

TRY TO TAKE A FOUR-THOUSAND-YEAR-OLD CIVILIZATION AND REDUCE IT TO LESS THAN SEVEN HUNDRED PAGES! GOOD, NOW DO TWO FOUR-THOUSAND-YEAR-OLD CIVILIZATIONS!

2026-05-26T20:21:02.681-04:00

A review of Conrad Schirokauer’s A Brief History of Chinese and Japanese Civilizations (1989)

(Rating 4 of 5)

I first read this book as part of a class I had on China and Japan. It is a good book and great introduction into the history of two important nations, with some additional throw-ins about Korea and Vietnam. It is, however, a lot of information jam-packed into a relatively small volume. It covers everything from the earliest days of civilization to modern communist China and democratic Japan.

Reading this book, it is important to distinguish between China the modern state and China the civilization. The reason is often on Western historical maps we will see the label “China” no matter what period is being displayed. This gives the Westerner the impression “Wow, China is really old!” While failing to understand that the People’s Republic of China has as much to do with the Han Empire as European Union does with the Roman Empire. Yes, they cover much of the similar landmass and the people are mostly their direct descendants but the very different “states’ to use a modern term.

Throughout much of its history China would go through periods of unification that would be interrupted by other periods of disunity. This would occur when a dynasty got corrupted, pressure from external threats, or other domestic disturbances cause an empire to collapse. Then everything is fragmented until a powerful leader or group commands enough support to put everything back together. This would be called having a “Mandate of Heaven.” China was in such a fractured state in the early half of the 20^th century.

“The Qin (Ch’in) unification of China in 221 B.C. was the beginning of some 400 years of imperial rule, even though the Qin itself barely survived the death of its first emperor. Building on Qin foundations, although overtly rejecting many of that regime’s polices, the Han erected a more lasting political structure. Under the Han, Chinese civilization was reshaped, and China became a great imperial power comparable in achievements and historical to the Roman Empire. Considering the importance of the period, it is perhaps not inappropriate that our English word “China” is ultimately derived from the name of this dynasty. On the other hand, the Chinese refer to themselves ethnically as the Han people.” (pg. 51)
Han Empire (60 BC)

Chinese civilization was so powerful and sophisticated that if a power was to come in and take over usually the conquerors would find themselves being more transformed by those who they had conquered. New rulers would find themselves assuming traditional Chinese titles for their rule with only their own names substituted in, and their own people set up as the ruling class. This would be true for both the Mongols (Yuan) and the Manchurians (Qing).

“Within China the long and bitter struggle against the Southern Song left lasting wounds. Chinese hatred and bitterness were matched by Mongol suspicion and distrust of the southerners. A significant number of Chinese remained loyal to the old dynasty, continued to employ Song terminology, and dreamed of a Song restoration while refusing to serve the new power. On the other hand, the Mongols relegated southerners to the lowest category in their fourfold division of society along ethnic lines. Highest status in this system was accorded to the Mongols.” (pg. 221)

Qing Empire

Unlike China, Japan’s throne was and is not considered something that someone outside the royal family could assume. Dynasties cannot be replaced and presumed legitimate. Only the ‘true’ family line can rule. So, getting control of these emperors is the primary concern of any power holder. One of the ways to do that is to have the current emperor tied up in so many religious ceremonies that they don’t have time for actual government duties. If some emperors get fed up and abdicate in favor of their minor son as soon as they are finally able, so much the better.

The Shogun, a position established in the twelfth century, becomes the default ruler of Japan for almost 700 years. The position eventually becomes hereditary although, unlike the imperial throne, the position does change clans from time to time.

“Legitimization for the new order came from the emperor, who in 1192 “appointed” Yoritomo shogun, or to use the full term, Seii Taishogun (Barbarian Suppressing General”). Under the theoretical sovereignty of the emperor, the shogun’s government exercised substantial “delegated” power. This was the beginning of an institution (the shogunate) that lasted until 1868.

“The most important power “delegated” to Yoritomo was legal control over the staffing of provincial posts, which enabled him to appoint his own men to administrative positions in the provinces. He was also authorized to appoint his men to the newly created position of Land Steward or Overseer (jito) and Military Protector or Constable (shugo). “ (pg.266)
(The Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu)

The Shogun office came to an end when the Meiji Emperor has decided to rule in his own right and with help of supporters overthrows the Shogun’s government. They create a constitution based on the Constitution of the Kingdom of Prussia. This means the country has a weak legislature and the monarch is practically all-powerful.

“In 1889 work on the constitution was completed, and it was promulgated as a “gift” from the emperor to his people. It remained in force until 1945. The emperor, father of the family state, retained the power to declare war, conclude treaties, and command the army. He also had the right to open, recess, and dissolve the legislature; the right to veto the latter’s decisions and the right to issue his own ordinances.” (pg. 435)

The Meigi Emperor

While the Japanese Throne kept getting stronger the Chinese Throne kept getting weaker. By 1912 the imperial system comes to end and China falls into the hands of warlords. Ultimately multiple powers die down to just two in the Nationalists and the Communists, and then the Communists finally prevail.

“The march itself, was a heroic accomplishment, a vindication of Mao’s belief in the power of the human will and determination. In just over a year, the marchers covered some 6,000 miles, traversing snow-covered mountain passes where they froze in their thin clothes and crossing treacherous bogs and marshes. To the hardships provided by nature was added the hostility of man, for there was rarely a day without some fighting. At one point they had no alternative but to cross a mountain torrent spanned by a thirteen-chain suspension bridge from which the enemy armed and waiting on the other side had removed the planks.” (pg. 537)

Mao's Long March

At the end of the book, we come to the ‘modern’ era: Mao’s Communists in China and the democratic Japan. China is opening and Japan is about to dominate the car and video game industry. Again, if you know nothing about this area of the world this book is a good introduction, but you fly through everything at record speed.

THE END OF A HOT WAR AND THE BEGINNING OF A COLD ONE

2022-08-05T13:24:00.006-04:00

A review of Winston Churchill’s Triumph and Tragedy (1953)

Part VI of Winston Churchill’s World War II memoirs

(Rating 4 of 5)

In the final volume in his memoirs of World War II Winston Churchill takes us from the beginnings of D-day to the final destruction of Hitler’s Germany and the creation of the bi-lateral post-war world that would consumed by what we refer to as the Cold War. Throughout the final books in this volume you feel that Churchill is more and more the man abandoned. On side he has Roosevelt dying on him and having to cultivate a new relationship with Truman. On the other side he has Stalin ever increasing his grip on Eastern Europe building what Churchill would later the call the Iron Curtin. In the end he is ultimately abandoned by the British people who had led to victory in this conflict when in their first opportunity to choose a government in ten years they toss him out.

In the beginning of the book D-Day is ongoing Churchill sees all of this through letters of the various commanders. As the allies push through he makes the point that it was in Allies’ good luck that Hitler focused less on bombers and instead just missiles. For as the Allies pushed through German forces’ abilities proved inefficient compared to the technological prowess of the Allies.

As the war pushes on it becomes clear that the Allies are going to win it is no longer of ‘if’ but ‘when.’ At this point plans are going to have to be made. What if Hitler himself offers unconditional surrender? There was a strong feeling that they should not negotiate with war criminals. So they refuse Hitler’s hypothetical offer and anyone else who was in the Nazi hierarchy. Instead wait for some other government to come to power to surrender. I wonder however if by holding this view Churchill would be subjecting this hypothetical peace government to the same blame the Weimar Republic had after the last war.

It was important to come up with a plan and be able to adapt to changing circumstances but on the Atlantic Churchill’s most powerful friend was becoming weaker and weaker as his physical condition continued to deteriorate.

“I lunched there on September 19. Harry Hopkins was present. He was obviously invited to please me. He explained to me his altered position. He had declined in the favour of the President. There was a curious incident at the luncheon, when he arrived a few minutes late and the President did not even great him. It was remarkable how definitely my contacts with the President improved and our affairs moved quicker as Hopkins appeared to regain his influence. In two days it seemed to be like old times. He said to me, ‘You must know I am not what I was.’ He had tried too much at once. Even his fullness of spirit broke under his variegated activities.” (p. 161)
Roosevelt with little time left.

One thing Churchill tries to dispel is the myth of Yalta. That Roosevelt’s growing weakness contributed to the Allies getting fleeced. One thing Churchill would later point out of the agreement itself was so bad why did Stalin violate it? He also has to defend against the point that Britain went to war to protect Poland but when it came to Poland it seemed that Stalin got his way almost every time. Churchill would continue to defend the decisions that were made while reminding everyone that they still needed the help of the Soviet Union.

“It is not permitted to those charged with dealing with events in times of war or crisis to confine themselves purely to the statement of broad general principles on which good people agree. They have to take definite decisions from day to day. They have to adopt postures which must be solidly maintained, otherwise how can any combinations for action be maintained? It is easy after the Germans are beaten, to condemn those who did their best to hearten the Russian military effort and to keep in harmonious contact with our great Ally, who had suffered so frightfully. What would have happened if we had quarreled with Russia while the Germans still had three or four hundred divisions on the fighting front? Our hopeful assumptions were soon to be falsified. Still they were the only ones possible at the time.” (p. 402)
Yalta

On his new American ally in President Harry Truman, he was very impressed how quickly Truman seemed to grasp matters. He did have some suspicions on some issues he may have been just piggy-backing off of Roosevelt’s policy.

“President Truman’s first political cat which concerned us was to take up the Polish question from the point where it stood when Roosevelt died, only forty-eight hours earlier. The document in which this was set fourth must of course have been far advanced in preparation by the State Department at the moment the new President succeeded. Nevertheless it is remarkable that he felt able so promptly to commit himself to it amid the formalities of assuming office and the funeral of his predecessor.” (p. 486)
New Ally

Churchill was not given the opportunity to finish his own story. As they were heading to the Conference to which the post-war world was to be build his party was defeated at the poles. It should be noted that when this volume was printed Churchill was once again the prime minister but the defeat in the election after victory in war hurt him. You can easily detect his bitterness in his statements about his resignation.

“In ordinary circumstances I should have felt free to take a few days to wind up the affairs of the Government in the usual manner. Constitutionally I could have awaited the meeting of Parliament in a few days’ time, and taken my dismissal from the House of Commons. This would have enabled me to present before resignation the unconditional surrender of Japan to the nation. The need for Britain being immediately represented with the proper authority at the Conference, where all the great issues we had discussed were now to come to a head, made all delay contrary to the public interest. Moreover, the verdict of the electors had been so overwhelmingly expressed that I did not wish to remain even for an hour responsible for their affairs.” (p.675)

In closing I have to admit I found Mr. Churchill’s memoirs somewhat difficult to get through they lacked the narrative appeal of his History of the English Speaking Peoples. Often things would be dragged down with long drown out letters that he easily could have summarized. I think I will take a break from memoirs for a little while.

RUNNING UP TO D-DAY

2022-07-28T21:59:00.005-04:00

A review of Winston Churchill’s Closing the Ring (1951)

Part V of Winston Churchill’s World War II memoirs

(Rating 3 of 5)

Churchill’s fifth volume goes over the remainder of the 1943 and the first half of 1944 leading up to the D-day invasion. The focus of the book has to maintaining the alliance the three great powers of the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union; the fall and future of Italy; with a little bit of the Pacific theater thrown in for good measure. Like the previous volumes I find Churchill’s personality clashes with other historical figures to more interesting than his description some of the events that were happening.

As the allies hopped from Africa to Italy and toppled the dictator Mussolini there was now a concern about control of the peninsula. It would be good for locals to cooperate and the best way for that to occur was for a local popular based authority to emerge from the population. So the allies needed to find local support quickly.

Operation Torch

“My position is that once Mussolini and the Fascists are gone, I will deal with any Italian authority which can deliver the goods. I am not in the least afraid for this purpose of seeming to recognize the House of Savoy or Badoglio, provided they are the ones who can make the Italians do what we need for our war purposes. Those purposes would certainly be hindered by chaos, Bolshevisation, or civil war. We have no right to lay undue burdens on our troops. It may well be that after the armistice terms have been accepted both the King and Badoglio will sink under the odium of surrender and that the Crown Prince and a new Prime Minister may be chosen.” (p. 64)
Needed some local support to complete Mussolini's overthrow

The local was in the person of King Victor Emmanuel III and his Prime Minster Pietro Badoglio. Despite the former cooperation with Mussolini, they proved to the best option in a bad situation. In Churchill’s view they were allies who came through.

“From the moment when the Armistice was signed and when the Italian Fleet loyally and courageously joined the Allies, I felt myself bound to work with the King of Italy and Marshal Badogio, at least until Rome should be occupied by the Allies and we could construct a really broad-based Italian Government for the prosecution of the war jointly with us. I was sure that King Victor Emmanuel and Badoglio would be able to do more for what had now become from the exiles or opponents of the Fascist regime. The surrender of the Italian Fleet was solid proof of their authority.” (p. 188)
King Victor Emmanuel III

Nevertheless Churchill still felt that Italy was going to be a strong challenge. Still with German troops, Italian fascists, and other various forms of resistance, Churchill tried to properly inform the Parliament of the tough road that they would be facing.

“The battle of Italy will be hard and long. I am not yet convinced that any other Government can be formed at the present time in Italy which could command the same obedience from the Italian armed forces. Should we succeed in the present battle and enter Rome, as I trust and believe we shall, we shall be free to discuss the whole Italian political situation, and we shall do so with many advantages that we do not possess at the present time. It is from Rome that a more broadly based Italian Government can best be formed. Whether a Government thus formed will be so helpful to the Allies as the present dispensation I cannot tell.” (p. 498)
Prime Minster Badoglio

As always what I enjoy most about these books are Churchill’s interactions with other world leaders. FDR often had to be the go-between when it came to his fellow titans, as Churchill would often be badgered by Stalin frankness of who and what he was, such as his suggestion the execution of German officers as a way of upsetting Churchill, where Roosevelt treats it as a joke.

In Churchill’s retelling he never loses his cool. When it joked that the unwritten British Constitution is what “Mr. Churchill wants it to be at any moment” he is quick to remind his colleagues that the House of Commons could dismiss him at any moment while Mr. Roosevelt’s term is fixed and Stalin is a dictator. Churchill also denies reports that the British were against a second front in France, instead keeps the focus on overlord and joins with Stalin in pressuring Roosevelt to choose his commander.

“The President remarked on the importance of the timing of operations in all the theaters. Now that the three Staffs had got together, he hoped they would keep together. He had informed Marshal Stalin that the next step was to appoint the Commander for ‘Overlord.’ After consultation with his own Staffs and with me, it should be possible to make a decision within three or four days. Now that the main military decisions had been taken, it seemed right for the British and American Staffs to return to Cairo as soon as possible to work out the details. To this Stalin and I agreed.” (p. 383)
Churchill and Stalin are pressuring Roosevelt to appoint a Commander for Overlord

There has been since World War II a nice little story about King George VI and Churchill. This old story repeated by General Eisenhower in his own memoirs and also by his grandson. It is shown in many bio films about Churchill. The story goes that Churchill wants to take an active part in the D-day operations from one of the British battleships. Generals are opposed but Churchill insists. That is when the King intervenes. Informing Churchill that he wants to lead the troops as King, His Majesty is opposed by Churchill citing the very reasons the generals didn’t want him to go. Churchill sees the King’s point and they both agree not to go.

However in Churchill’s own account of it, that he provides with the King’s permission to correct the record, it was not one event but a series of exchanges between the King and the Prime Minister. Basically the King had to almost beg Churchill not to go.

“I want to make one more appeal to you not to go to sea on D-Day. Please consider my own position. I am a younger man than you, I am a sailor, and as King I am the head of all these Services. There is nothing I would like better than to go to sea, but I have agreed to stay home; is it fair that you should then do exactly what I should have liked to do myself? You said yesterday afternoon that it would be a fine thing for the King to lead troops into battle, as in the old days; if the King cannot do this, it does not seem to me right that his Prime Minister should take his place.” (p. 622)
Churchill's owed King George a little more respect

Churchill relents but in a passive aggressive fashion notes that the ship he was going to be on board did not take fire during the attack. In an attempt to clear the record on this matter he comes off as a totally jerk to a King who was doing his best to help him.

As the book ends the Countdown to D-Day has begun.

THE WAR WAGES ON

2022-07-12T20:41:00.002-04:00

A review of Winston Churchill’s The Hinge of Fate (1950)

Part IV of Winston Churchill’s World War II memoirs

(Rating 3 of 5)

The third book in Sir Winston Churchill’s World War II memoirs covers the year 1942 and most of 1943. At this point the Grand Alliance was formed the United States of America, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain were combining their strengths to bring down the regime of the Axis leaders Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Also on the Pacific the American and Royal Navies are waging war against the Japanese Empire.

Most of this book consists of is Churchill’s communications between his allies President Roosevelt and Premier Stalin, as well as numerous communications back and forth between him and his subordinates. The book is a middle chapter with neither a real beginning nor real end. Churchill mostly discusses the military campaigns in Africa, pressure from the Soviets for a second front in Europe, sea battles with the Japanese, and some internal political struggle within Great Britain itself. There are points where the book focus not on the main events at the time but on plans and discussions for what is about to come. This can be especially dark when reading about the discussions on weapons research.

“I told the President in general terms of the great progress we had made, and that our scientists were now definitely convinced that results might be reached before the end of the present war. He said his people were getting along too, but no one could tell whether anything practical would emerge till a full-scale experiment had been made. We knew what efforts the Germans were making to procure supplies of ‘heavy water’—a sinister term, eerie, unnatural, which began to creep into our secret papers. What if the enemy should get an atomic bomb before we did! However skeptical one might feel about the assertions of scientists, much dispute among themselves and expressed in jargon incomprehensible to laymen, we could not run the mortal risk of being outstripped in this awful sphere.” (p. 380)

Julius Caesar may have a mocked his defeated rivals for making plans about what they were going to do when they came to power after his defeat, but in actuality is actually smart to make plans for what is to come after the conflict. It is how you win the peace after you have won the war. Amongst the allies there was a good deal of talk about what the postwar world was going to look like especially in Europe.

“In the course of a general talk I said that the first preoccupation must be to prevent further aggression in the future by Germany or Japan. To this and I contemplated an association of the United States, Great Britain, and Russia. If the United States wish to include China in association with the other three, I was perfectly willing that this should be done; but, however great the importance of China, she was knocked comparable to the others. On these Powers would rest the real responsibility for peace. They together, with certain other Powers, to form a Supreme World Council.” (p.802)
FDR, Churchill, and Stalin

At times during these discussions the future of a defeated Germany did not look very good for the Germans. Germany, having only been unified since the Franco-Prussian war of the 1870s, was not naturally viewed by either Churchill or Stalin as being necessary to continue as a unified state. We know now that Germany would spend over four decades split apart. However the division between East and West Germany could have been far worse.

“I said that I would like to see Prussia divided from the rest of Germany, forty million Prussians being a manageable European unit. Many people wish to carry the process of division further and divide Prussia itself into component parts, but on this I reserve judgment. Poland and Czechoslovakia should stand together and friendly relations with Russia. This left the Scandinavian countries and Turkey, which last might or might not be willing, with Greece, to play some part in the Balkan system.” (p.803)
Let's undo this!

Some of the things I enjoyed about this book happen not to be the great events that we already know happened but some of the smaller ones. For example, Churchill citing from memory American poetry from the US Civil War and impressing his audience. More practically I love Churchill’s comments about when traveling across time zones biplane they should keep their eating routines identical to the time zone where they first got on the plane in order not to create confusion.

Having finished this book we are now two thirds of the way to completion of this entire series. Although I enjoyed his earlier books I am really more excited for the coming chapters as we come to the fall of Hitler and the rise of the United Nations.

[Video posted by the YouTuber British Pathé]

GREAT BRITAIN STANDS ALONE (AT LEAST UNTIL THE USSR AND THE USA JOIN HER)

2022-07-06T23:51:00.001-04:00

A review of Winston Churchill’s The Grand Alliance (1950)

Part III of Winston Churchill’s World War II memoirs

(Rating 3 of 5)

Sir Winston Churchill’s third volume of his memoirs on World War II show him leading the British Government through its darkest days when all the major allies had fallen and they are fighting seemingly outnumbered and outgunned with their very surveil is in doubt. This continues on until the Germany in an act of stupidity decides to attack the USSR before they finish the British off. Then after the Japanese attack the United States, the United Kingdom forms with them and the Soviet Union “the Grand Alliance.”

Unfortunately the book itself is not very exciting. It mostly consists of messages sent back and forth between Churchill and his various subordinates. He is just receives, shouts back orders, and moves on to the next thing. The coverage is broad. In Churchill’s eyes you see the fighting in theaters all across the globe making it easy to understand why this is a “World War.” However Churchill is at his best as a writer when he gives his analysis on what is going on. That is available in this book but there is little of it.

Churchill in his Air Force Uniform

A good example of some of Churchill’s better writing is in first section of the book where he discusses the Japanese threat to the British Empire. The Japanese Empire, who were already on friendly terms and taking suggestions from Hitler’s Third Reich, had a lot to gain at the expense of the British. Nevertheless they did not seem to take the Germans suggestion to ignore the Americans in the present.

“This was for very different reasons also the German view. Germany and Japan were both eager to despoil and divide the British Empire. But they approached the target from different angles. The German High Command argued that the Japanese ought to commit their armed forces in Malaya and the Dutch East Indies without worrying about the American Pacific bases, and the main fleet which lay or their flank.” (pg. 181)
Hideki Tojo, Prime Minster of Japan

My favorite part of the book had to do with the sinking of the Bismarck in a great sea battle with the Royal Navy. There is a type of perverse beauty of a battle with great military and nautical minds going at it with fate of nations at stake.

“A northwesterly gale was blowing when the daylight came on the twenty-seventh. The Rodney opened fire at 8:47 AM, followed a minute later by the King George V. The British ships quickly began to hit, and after a pause the Bismarck too opened fire. For a short time her shooting was good, although the crew after four grueling days, were utterly exhausted and falling asleep at their posts. With her third salvo she straddled the Rodney, but thereafter the weight of the British attack was overwhelming, and within a half an hour most of her guns were silent. A fire was blazing amidships, and she had a heavy list to port. The Rodney now turned across her bow, pouring in a heavy fire from a range of no more than four thousand yards. By 10:15 all the Bismarck’s guns were silent and her mast was shot away. The ship lay wallowing in the heavy seas, a flaming and smoking ruin; yet even then she did not sink.” (pg. 318-9)

Except she did sink, as Churchill found out the next morning and was happy to have everyone find that out when he announced it to the House of Commons. It was one of the most daring adventures that the British had as they stood alone against the Nazi menace.

Hitler, the ever present threat

Then Hitler decided he didn’t like Stalin anymore and attacked the Soviet Union. Even though the Russians were huge help as an ally, Churchill never liked Stalin or the Soviet state. They British originally went to war to defend the rights of Poland and the two major aggressors were Hitler and Stalin. In the book Churchill pivots back and forth from praising Russia as a great and important ally to calling them a burden and more trouble than they were worth. In real life they extremely important and Churchill himself used the line of enemy of Hitler is our ally and even making an analogy to the biblical Satan. In the book you can feel his contempt for them.

“The Soviet Government had the impression that they were conferring a great favour on us by fighting in their own country for their own lives. The more they fought the heaver that debt became. This was not a balanced view.” (pg. 388)
Churchill didn't really want to be friends but didn't have much of a choice.

A completely opposite view of the United States entering the war is giving by Churchill. When the United States enters he basically declares victory. Churchill’s mother was an American and for those of us who read his History of the English Speaking Peoples, we know Churchill considers the United States to be part of that group.

“No American will think it wrong of me if I proclaim that to have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. I could not foretell the course of events. I do not pretend to have measured accurately the martial might of Japan, but now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all! Yes, after Dunkirk; after the fall of France;….England would live; Britain would live; the Commonwealth of Nations and the Empire would live.” (pg. 606-7)
Pearl Harbor

The rest of the book deals with the formation of the Grand Alliance, the Agreement that no peace be made without the consent of all, and the taking of the name “United Nations” that would later be the banner to which a new group that would form to maintain the peace after the war had drawn to a close.

In closing the memoirs thus far are not for the casual reader you have to have a strong appreciation for this topic to follow along in with this book.

[Video was put up by YouTube user Henrik Herlev}

GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE (THEN JUST GREAT BRITAIN)

2022-07-01T23:46:00.005-04:00

A review of Winston Churchill’s Their Finest Hour (1949)

Part II of Winston Churchill’s World War II memoirs

(Rating 4 of 5)

Like many people 2016 was rather ruff for me. The loss of couple close relatives, chaos at work, and other issues forced my reading to take a huge hit. That said I could go weeks without even touching one of my books. I normally try to make myself at the very least read a chapter a day. But this year that didn’t happen. Even though I am writing this at the end of January I don’t expect to post it for a long while. (In fact, we are now in July of 2022 folks!)

Well on with my review. Their Finest Hour starts write where The Gathering Strom left off, the fall of Chamberlin’s government and the rise of Churchill as the Prime Minister. I think American readers might be taken aback by how British Prime Minsters can rise and fall not by an election by just a reorganization of party. As in the case with both David Cameron’s predecessor, Gordon Brown, and successor, Theresa May. May is the Prime Minister currently. (Nope! Not anymore!) The executive power changes without the people having any say in it what so ever. Yet in the United Kingdom it is the system they have and it is viewed as quite natural.

Chamberlin stood aside for Churchill

It is useful trivia that Churchill was the last Prime Minister not to be the leader of party. Chamberlin retained that for six months until he resigned for health reasons. At first Churchill wondered if he should take it, since his government was an all talents government, but the more he thought of it allowing someone else to be the leader of the majority meant giving someone the power to bring down his government at will. So he took the job.

Despite being a supporter of Nevil Chamberlin and having tried to prevent his resignation, Churchill really enjoyed his new job. This type of person Churchill was: when there was a crisis he wanted to be in the thick of it. With the job of Prime Minister he was able to take on the challenge in the manner in which he most saw fit.

“In my long political experience I had held most of the great offices of State, but I readily admit that the post which had now fallen to me was the one I liked the best. Power, for the sake of lording it over fellow-creatures or adding to personal pomp, is rightly judged as base. But power in a national crisis, when a man believes he knows what orders should be given, is a blessing. In any sphere of action there can be no comparison of number one and numbers two, three, and four.” (p. 15)

In taking command Churchill reorganized the government to be more efficient in war time. He created a new ministry called the Minister of Defense and gave himself, as Prime Minister, the job. This allowed all the military heads to report to a single executive authority.

“In calling myself, with the King’s approval, Minster of Defence, I made no legal or constitutional change. I had been careful not to define my right and duties. I asked for no special powers either from the Crown or Parliament. It was however, understood that I should assume the general direction of the war, subject to the support of the War Cabinet and of the House of Commons. The key-change which occurred on my taking over was, of course, the supervision and direction of the Chiefs of the Staff Committee by a Minster of Defence with undefined powers. As this Minster was also the Prime Minister, he had all the rights inherent in that office, including the very wide powers of selection and removal of all professional and political personages. Thus for the first time the Chiefs of Staff Committee assumed its due and proper place in direct daily contact with the executive Head of the Government, and in accord with him had full control over the conduct of the war and the armed forces.” (p.16)
Churchill with King George VI

The first half of this book involves Great Britain and France against a revived Germany hell-bent on conquest. They start at war against Germany alone but quickly Italy, who was already invading other counties, joins the fight as well. Germany was prepared and the allies were not. As a consequence France found itself pushed back into their own county. They were beaten and at one point the Third Republic realized their end came in the way it began, with a German invasion. Not all parties accepted this however.

“It was clear that France was near the end of organized resistance, and a chapter in the war was now closing. The French might by some means continue the struggle. There might even be two French Governments, one which made peace, and one which organized resistance from the French colonies, carrying on the war at sea through the French Fleet and in France through guerrillas It was too early to tell. Though for a period we might still have to send some support to France, we must now concentrate our main efforts on the defence of our island.” (p. 159-60)

There a couple of things about the fall of France that I found fascinating. The first was the state of the French Navy, where the main capital ships sat in the water for duration of the war officially in the service of the Vichy puppet government. The second was the fact serious consideration was given to the idea of combining the United Kingdom and the French Third Republic would combine into one great supernation. Basically reviving the old Plantagenet claim for King George VI.

“He hoped with us that this solemn pledge of union and brotherhood between the two nations and empires would give the struggling French Premier the means to carry his Government to Africa with all possible forces and order the French Navy to sail for harbours outside impending German control.” (p.209)
King Edward III's old French claim revived for the 20th century

The second part of the book is “when England stood alone” against the German militarily might. This part you get a view of Winston Churchill: war leader. Giving orders to and receiving reports from his subordinates. He also would write letters back and forth to President Roosevelt. As time went on Great Britain would get pounded with bombs. Churchill writes with admiration about the people partially the public servants who continued with their duties in the face of danger.

“It will always add to the renown of the British Parliament that its Members continued to sit and discharge their duties through all this period. The Commons are very touchy in such matters, and it would have been easy to misjudge their mood. When one Chamber was damaged, they moved to another, and I did my utmost to persuade them to follow wise advice with good grace. Their migrations will be recorded in due course. In short, everyone behaved with sense and dignity. It was also lucky that when the Chamber was blown to pieces a few months later, it was by night and not by day, when empty and not full. With our mastery of the daylight raids there came a considerable relief in personal convenience. But during the first few months I was never free from anxiety about the safety of the Members. After all, a free sovereign Parliament, fairly chosen by universal suffrage, able to turn out the Government any day, but proud to uphold it in the darkest days, was one of the points which were in dispute with the enemy. Parliament won.” (p. 356-7)

Hitler having conquered France

The land lease was historically one of the most important acts that President Roosevelt ever did. It gave important aid to a past and future ally at a difficult time. Without the British might of run out of capital before they ran out of bombs.

“Up till November, 1940, we had paid for everything we had received. We had already sold $335,000,000 worth of American shares requisitioned for sterling from private owners in Britain. We had paid out over $4,500,000,000 in cash. We had only two thousand millions left, the greater part in investments, many of which were not readily marketable. It was plain that we could not go on any longer in this way. Even if we divested ourselves of all our gold and foreign assets, we could not pay for half we had ordered, and the extension of the war made it necessary for us to have ten times as much. We must keep something in hand to carry on our daily affairs.” (p. 557-8)

By the close of the year the British people had prevailed. They were headed into the year 1941 with a continued great challenge in front of them. They would get help from the nations of their Empire and throughout the year the United States would provide arms before joining the conflict at years end.

{Video is from the 2017 film The Darkest Hour}

Roe V Wade 2022 and 2024

2022-06-25T13:33:00.001-04:00

To everyone who cares about right of women to have control of their own bodies:

We are on the defensive make no mistake about it. As of yesterday morning, half the women in the United States will shortly lose control of their basic anatomy. I live in Maine, one of the “safe states” where women still have that right. I would prefer the term “Free State.” Once we were called a free state for a very different reason. I will not say the two are comparable because the evil that was fought before was clearly worse. However, if someone is homeless and eating in a soup kitchen saying to that person “at least you’re not starving” doesn’t really do anything to cure the person’s homelessness does it? There have been worse things to happen in this country but this is the problem we are facing right now. So please don’t confuse the analogy.

In 1858 Lincoln said,

A house divided against itself, cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.

I feel this is true for the nation today. At the moment women have the right to choose a medical abortion in 37 states and will most likely lose it in other states within the coming months. In the short term this will lead to a nation that is only half free. I don’t think that is going to hold. It is either going to become all of one or all of the other and that will be determined in the 2022 and 2024 elections.

To put it simply the Republican Party needs to be punished and needs to be punished severely for if they are not bad things will happen. If they are only slightly damaged or even empowered, they will go for more. A Republican controlled Congress with a Republican President WILL pass a national law banning choice everywhere! Then they will come after contraception, marriage equality, and anything else you can think.

So, to simplify these are the three possible outcomes.

1) Democrats win in the fall and win in 2024. We can begin to fix this right away, with solid majorities in both Houses of Congress and put Roe into statutory law and maybe we can even work on expanding the Supreme Court to get this lawless court under control.

2) Republicans take control of Congress in the fall but the Democrats prevail in 2024. This means gridlock for two years while half the nation’s women are still living in Anti-Choice sections of the United States. Reform begins in 2025 we have recovered all that was lost by the end of the decade.

3) Republicans win in the fall and win in 2024. By the end of the decade choice will be dead in America and it will not be revived for a minimum of three generations. Other rights will be on the defensive and most time will be spent on defending those. With any luck women three generations from now will win back the right that were once taken for granted by their great-grandmothers.

Belichick vs Brady

2021-02-06T21:42:00.000-05:00

For twenty years we who are fans of the New England Patriots were blessed to have both the greatest Head Coach and Quarterback combination of all time in Bill Belichick and Tom Brady. With the unprecedented success in winning six Super Bowls in nine trips to the big game also came a question: which one was more important?

Celtics President Danny Anige has pointed out the stupidity of this debate. He stated that people don’t generally ask if Red Auerbach or Bill Russell was more important racking up all those earlier Celtic Championships. Yet the debate was often used as a form of attack when anyone wanted to downplay the accomplishments of one or the other. “Belichick isn’t that great of a coach, he just has Brady. Look at his record with the Browns anybody could look good with Brady as their quarterback.” or “Brady isn’t that great he just had Belichick all those years. If Peyton Manning had Belichick as his couch how many do you think he could have won?”

Mutual admiration

When asked the two normally will give credit to the other one. Belichick will often utter the line, “Players win games, not coaches” and Brady will say that he owes Belichick for teaching him everything he knows.

With Brady leaving the Patriots for the Buccaneers this year and leading them to the Super Bowl this Sunday the debate is now tipping in Brady’s favor and will continue to do so if they win. If the Bucs lose with Brady performing well but fail to keep up with Mahomes’s offensive onslaught, then it might swing back to Belichick with people remembering how the Patriots defense handled the Chiefs in the AFC Championship game two years ago.

In my own view the two compliment each other they both bring a certain level of success to the team and together they augment each other's greatness. I have watched every game that the two were in together and saw nine trips to the Super Bowl. My take of the six victories three of them both men were equally responsible for, two Belichick was more responsible for, and one Brady was primary. Of the three losses one was more Belichick’s fault, and two were Brady’s. Let us take a look at each of these to explain why.

Super Bowl 36
2001 New England Patriots
2/3/2002
More responsible for win: Belichick

The memory that most have about Super Bowl 36 is Brady in the final minutes of the game driving his team down the field to set up the winning field goal with no time remaining. It had been a hell of a year. The franchise quarterback, Drew Bledsoe had been injured in the first game following a return to football after the 9/11 attacks. Taking over the backup quarterback, a sixth round draft pick named Tom Brady, showed some promise by almost winning that game. The Patriots went on a Cinderella run, a team that never won the Super Bowl before was going to become one of the positive stories about the year 2001. To his critics Brady was a game manager who made quick short passes and whose long ball was questionable at best. However he was effective and supported by a shutdown defense, Belichick elected to keep him in even after Bledsoe was healthy to return. Although Bledsoe got to come in and have some heroics in the AFC Championship game after Brady was hurt, Brady was still selected to start the Super Bowl after some debate.

Moment of Victory!

I have seen Super Bowl 36 more than any other. I would do a Patriots victory marathon every time they got back to the Super Bowl. One of the most shocking things to people who go back and watch this is just how badly Tom Brady played.

He may have been selected MVP but you would hardly see why watching the first 50+ minutes of the game. During this time the Patriots offense was like a car with a poor starter. They were repeatedly three and out, and when they actually got a first down it was normally followed by a punt three plays later. I think they may have had one drive in the first quarter where they had two first downs but I am not sure. The story of that Super Bowl was not its offense but its defense.

The Rams of this era were known as “The Greatest Show on Turf” but the Pats defense, led by the likes of Ty Law, Richard Seymore, and Lawyer Malloy, overwhelmed them. Kurt Warner was able to move his offense up and down the field but were prevented from scoring with forced stops and turnovers. As the first quarter came to a close the Rams offensive juggernaut was limited to just two field goal attempts, and one of them was missed.

In the second quarter the Pats offense was not providing much assistance while the defense was doing all that it could. Not only did they hold the Rams scoreless but Ty Law intercepted Warner for a pick-six to put the Patriots on top with a 7-3 lead. As the quarter came to an end Antwan Harris forced the Rams to fumble in their own territory and the Pats were able to recover. Starting in their opponent’s territory Brady was able to drive it down the field and complete his first touchdown pass to David Patten. The first half ended with the Pats up 14-3.

The third quarter was a replay of what the earlier game had been with the Rams moving it up the field with no result but still holding on to the ball longer than the Patriots. Otis Smith intercepted a pass and brought it back to the Rams 30. Brady and the offense went three and out again, so the Patriots settled for a field goal. 17-3.

By the fourth quarter the defense of the Patriots started to show signs of exhaustion but they weren’t done yet. With the Rams at the Pats goal line about to score, the Patriots forced another fumble and Tebucky Jones ran it all the way back for another 97 yards touchdown to put the game out of reach for the Rams. Or would have if there hadn’t been a penalty for holding on the play. The Rams now had first and goal from the goal line and were able to punch it in to put them down by a score. When the Pats had the ball back they did a quick three and out and it went back to the Rams again. The Rams marched down the field and tied the game with a 1:30 left in the quarter. The Rams comeback win seemed inevitable. The way the Patriots were playing it didn’t seem like they had it in them to win by way of their offense. But then they did. In a now legendary drive Brady drove it up the field to set up a game winning field goal by Adam Vinatieri.

Brady deserves credit for those last minute plays to secure the victory but the lion’s share of credit for that win belongs to Belichick.

Super Bowl 38

2003 New England Patriots
2/1/2004
Both evenly responsible for win

If I were a sports documentarian I think a good documentary would be about the 2003 New England Patriots and the 2003 NFL season as a whole. After the Bucs beat the Raiders in Super Bowl 37 there was a good deal of discussion about how the era of great quarterbacks was over and from now on it was going to be strong defenses with okay or moderate quarterbacks. It turns out we were heading into the Brady-Manning era which would be led by great quarterbacks with the rivalry between the top two as the centerpiece. Yes the two had faced off twice in 2001 but those were Brady’s first start and first road start with no one expecting anything from him and the Colts were an off year that would lead to the firing of their head coach, Jim Mora.

Despite the disastrous start where they were blown out 31-0 in the opener they rallied back and finished with a 14-2 record. In the playoffs they beat the co-MVPs that year Payton Manning and Steve McNair.

Happy?

The Super Bowl against the Panthers was one of my favorites. Two great defenses tore into the offenses at the start of each half and continued half way into the 2nd and 4th quarters respectively. It was nearing the end of each half that the two defenses were worn down leading to a quarterback duel between Tom Brady and Jake Delhomme. At the end of the first half Brady and the Pats were on top 14-10, but during the shootout in the second half Delhomme and Panthers managed to see it tied 29-29. That is when Brady led the Pats offense on another miracle drive that ended with another game-winning Vinatieri-kick.

Again!

That year the offense and defense were equals that complimented on another. Both the Head Coach and Quarterback deserve equal credit for this one.

Super Bowl 39

2004 New England Patriots
2/6/2005
Both evenly responsible for win

“Yes, it is a dynasty!” The announcer said after the Patriots secured their third win in four years. Very much like the previous year’s team, except for a better running game with the acquisition of Corey Dillon, the Patriots finished this season 14-2 and took down the Colts and Steelers led by the likes of Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger respectively.

A master at work!

The Super Bowl was a duel between two evenly talented teams who in the first two quarters matched each other score for score. In the fourth quarter the Pats were able to pull ahead by ten and the Eagles were only able to pull within three as the game ended on a Rodeny Harrison interception. Like the season before the offense and defense were perfect complements and the Head Coach and Quarterback deserve equal credit.

On the wrong side of sack for Mr. McNabb

Super Bowl 42

2007 New England Patriots
2/3/2008
More at fault for loss: Brady

The Super Bowl that we Patriot fans hate talking about the most: the loss of the perfect season. I am going to make this quick. In Brady’s defense you could say he had his team up by four with less than three minutes to go. However like Super Bowl 36 I am judging this by the whole performance not just then end of the game. If your defense holds your opponents to under twenty points and you have one of the most explosive offenses in the history of the game (with Randy Moss and Wes Welker as your star receivers)then that needs to be a win. Yet, they were only able to put up two scores. Ironically, earlier that week Brady joked about a Giants player’s 20-17 Giants prediction when he said, “You think we’re only going to score 17 points?” If they did they would have tied and gone to overtime.

One of the worst days of my life!

Super Bowl 46
2011 New England Patriots
2/5/2012
More at fault for loss: Brady

Rubbing salt in the wound the Patriots fall again to the same team that denied them their perfect season four years prior. The same thing almost happened again. The Pats got three more points this time but you had a great offense that for some reason couldn’t beat a team who your defense held to under twenty points. (Yes I understand the Giants scored 21 but 2 of those came on a safety when Brady threw out of bounds in his own end zone on the opening their drive.) God, it was an ugly game.

Here we are again.

Super Bowl 49

2014 New England Patriots
2/1/2015
More responsible for win: Brady

Like Super Bowl 36 everyone remembers how this one ended. The Malcolm Butler interception at the goal line the game’s last moments to seal the win. You might think we would credit Belichick more. The Coach gets credit but the lion’s share of this one belongs to Tom Brady. The way the sliced threw the so-called “Legion of Boom” leading the team back from a ten point fourth quarter deficit to a four point lead by the way of two touchdowns. The game that truly ended the Manning/Brady debate as the same defense had squashed Manning’s Broncos in the previous Super Bowl.

Whose the GOAT?

Super Bowl 51

2016 New England Patriots
2/5/2017
Both evenly responsible for win

No chance...

28-3 that is what everyone remembers about this game and for good reason. The Patriots down 28-3 in the third quarter rallied to the greatest comeback in the history of the Super Bowl. With this game, both Brady and Belichick were both equally responsible for both getting themselves in the deep hole and also equally responsible for getting them out. It was a unique combination of offense to assemble the points combined with a defense that held the other side to none and created opportunities with turnovers.

...at all

Super Bowl 52

2017 New England Patriots
2/4/2018
More at fault for loss: Belichick

Yeah this loss is on Belichick. When your quarterback throws for over 500 yards and the offense scores 33 points and you’re supposed to be a defensive genius then it is on you to win. When your big decision before the game is to bench one your top corners who won you the Super Bowl three years ago. I don’t know who else to blame but the coach in this situation.

This one is on the coach

Super Bowl 53

2018 New England Patriots
2/3/2019
More responsible for win: Belichick

Like their first Super Bowl appearance when they also played the Rams, Brady and his offense couldn’t score more than 13 points. Those are normally losing numbers but when you have a defense that performed as well as theirs did that day it was nine points more than needed. That one was “In Bill We Trust.”

Defense wins championships!

HAMILTON AND JOHN ADAMS

2020-07-22T19:53:00.002-04:00

After seeing the great musical Hamilton when it premiered on Disney+ earlier this month I found myself enjoying it immensely. I thought it would be fun to do a short compare and contrast with another great work that I have enjoyed: John Adams. This was a miniseries that HBO produced and aired in 2008, which like Hamilton was met with rave reviews from critics and was given numerous awards.

The differences are immediate and visually obvious Hamilton is a stage play while John Adams is mini-series for television. John Adams has seven episodes each slightly over an hour making the entire project over eight hours long, where Hamilton total run time is two and half hours. It is true that Hamilton only lived about half as long as John Adams but that the play has less than a third of the time to tell his story. The star of Hamilton, Lin-Manuel Miranda, also wrote the play, while John Adams starred Paul Giamatti and was written by Kirk Ellis.

David Morse as George Washington in John Adams.

Then there are the aesthetics. Hamilton is a musical and it bills itself as “the story of America then told by America of today.” The genre of music is a diverse selection of R &B, soul, hip-hop, and traditional-style show tunes. The casting of Hamilton is revolutionary diverse with roles of white historical figures going to actors who are people of color. This is done following the “America then told by America today” standard. The nation is a much more diverse place then it was in the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries. Not only has the diversity increased, but as a measure of the country’s progress, the positions people of color now have the opportunity to fill has changed as well. The play was written and premiered during the presidency of Barrack Obama. It was a powerful message of inclusion in a narrative where people of color were traditional excluded.

Christopher Jackson as George Washington in Hamilton.

John Adams on the other hand is a period piece which does its best to retain an authentic look from the period. This can be seen from the wardrobe trying to replicate the type of fabrics of the period; to the props trying to insure authentic appearance to the carriages, fire arms, etc; finally to the make-up trying to make the actors look more like the historical figures they are trying to represent. In short, their set tries to re-create the world as it existed in the late 18^th century.

Daveed Diggs as Thomas Jefferson in Hamilton.

Now we come to the similarities. Both works are based on a life of an American Founding Father. Both works are closely based on popularly written biographies about those founders. John Adams was based on David McCullough’s 2001 biography of the same name, while Hamilton was based on Ron Chernow’s 2004 biography titled Alexander Hamilton.

Stephen Dillane as Thomas Jefferson in John Adams.

The most important similarity between the two works (and if you take anything away from this review let be this) is while the settings of these works are the American Revolution and the establishment of the U.S. Constitution these events are not what either is about. Both are about its principal subject be it Alexander Hamilton or John Adams. Every event we witness and every other historical figure we meet is based on what the subject perceived. However when one glances back with that in mind it again brings us to important distinctions in each work.

In John Adams the American Revolution is a gruesome and undesirable necessity carried out in order to defend the rights of the colonists as citizens, because that is what the Revolution was to Mr. Adams. In Hamilton, the American Revolution is exciting and wonderful opportunity for talented people born without high privilege to “rise up” and above their station. This is because that is what Revolution meant to Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton presents George Washington as this courageous general who doubles as a father figure, because that is who he was to fatherless Alexander Hamilton. While the John Adams George Washington is a noble, stoic, and often distant figure because that is how he appeared to Adams.

Then there is Thomas Jefferson. The Thomas Jefferson of Hamilton comes off as the villain of the piece. Easily one of the most enjoyable characters of the play Jefferson is exciting to watch and he is foil to poor Mr. Hamilton in every instance of the play’s second act. Again, this is who Jefferson was to Alexander Hamilton, so they play presents him as such. In John Adams, Jefferson is often quiet and self-conscious, Adams is one of those who help him find his voice. He recruits him to write the Declaration of Independence. Once Jefferson has his voice and once America becomes a nation complete with a new Constitution the two friends become rivals. The relationship of Adams and Jefferson as one-time friends who turn on each other mirrors the relationship between Hamilton and Burr in the play, except for that disastrous ending.

Speaking of Burr, he had no role in the HBO miniseries. Not only was Aaron Burr absent but James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, is mentioned only in passing. This has little to do with the historic importance rather their impact on the life of John Adams in comparison with other figures. Likewise the play Hamilton does not include the John Hancock, Samuel Adams (mentioned only as the name of a drink) and most importantly does not have a character of Benjamin Franklin. This is not an over-site of Lin-Manuel Miranda just a reflection of those historical figures impact on Alexander Hamilton.

What is most interesting is how Adams and Hamilton are presented in each other’s drama. In Hamilton Adams never makes an appearance, but he comes up in discussion and song a number of times. He first mentioned by Eliza as she tries to get her husband to come out to the country pointing out that Adams does this for his wife. To which Hamilton responds that, as Vice President, Adams does not have a real job. Later after Adams becomes President, Jefferson and Madison are discussing how he and Hamilton had a fall out leading to Adams dismissing Hamilton and Hamilton coming out and publicly attacking the leader of his own party. This damages the Federalists so badly that it practically hands the election to the Democratic-Republicans. After Jefferson and Madison are done talking it over the audience sees Hamilton from the raised flat of the stage and dropping a book down to the floor shouting John Adams name.

Rufus Sewell as Alexander Hamilton in John Adams

In John Adams, Hamilton as a character appears in two episodes. His first appearance is in the fifth episode “Unite or Die.” In this episode Hamilton appears at an early meeting of George Washington’s cabinet. During the meeting he basically schools Thomas Jefferson on economics and lays out plans to set up a National Bank and assume the states’ debts. This of course laid the ground work for stability of the United States Government. A success from the Washington Administration that when Jefferson became President in 1801 he found that messing with it would be detrimental to the Union. Hamilton’s second appearance is in the sixth episode “Unnecessary War” in which shows the clash between Adams/Hamilton more sympathetically to Adams. Their fallout shows a Hamilton who has bitten off more than he can chew and needs Adams to bring him back to reality.

In closing I highly enjoyed both works and would encourage anyone to watch them. Just remember when doing so with each presentation you are learning about a great historical figure who existed in an extraordinary setting of the American Revolution. The setting and the characters in it are seen only from the view of the main character. This is not to say you might not learn a thing or two about these periods but just keep in mind how it is slanted.

“YOU ARE SPAM!” MY DISAPPOINTMENT WITH FACEBOOK AND MY LOST LITTLE STAR TREK BLOG

2020-05-03T14:11:00.000-04:00

One of my most enjoyable hobbies is blogging. I am not a big time blogger by anyone’s standards. I first started blogging about 12 years ago when I started this blog where I would review history books I had been reading, an occasional political opinion I would want to strongly express, or an occasional tribute to a lost loved one. Around that same time I joined Facebook and one of the things that I loved about it, in addition to being able to contact with lost-by-distance friends and relatives, was being able to share your likes and hobbies with other like-minded people.

In 2016 with the new Ghostbusters movie coming out I decided to go down a trip in memory lane and watch the classic films and animated series. I started a blog documenting that journey and would share it with my friends on Facebook. Lately with the 2020 movie, now moved to 2021, I started re-watching episodes, re-editing posts (that Ghostbusters blog was a rushed job it needs it), and re-sharing with my current Ghostbusters Facebook groups.

Around this time last year I decided to work on a life dream. With my CBS subscription giving me access to the entire franchise I would start a new blog where I would cover the entire Star Trek universe. Not on a time limit set to make a new movie or series date, just in order bit by bit putting quality over quantity. Chip away at it as a hobby. Like with my other blogs, I also chose to share the posts on Facebook with my fellow fans.

In my short time plugging away on my blog I had written an article on it about Continuity and Canon, made reviews for every episode in the first season, an article about why production order is the best way to watch The Original Series, and I started posting episode reviews from season two. And when I shared them with my Facebook groups I received positive and constructive feedback from my fellow fans, which was great. There was a bump or two in the road when one group didn’t approve my review for “Mudd’s Women” because I called Harry Mudd a pimp! However it is their group and they can approve whatever they like. I also enjoy being able to respond with a written review if anyone randomly asks what I thought of an episode I already covered.

I am currently a member of seven Star Trek Facebook groups: Star Trek, Star Trek Forever, Everything Star Trek, Star Trek Forever and Always, The Original Star Trekkers, The Star Trek Fan Pagefor Everyone, and Star Trek Universe. I want to point out that in these groups I will often like, comment on, or visit links to other fan created content not just to air my own stuff. Now I wouldn’t always post the same reviews to each group as I joined them at different times. When I joined a new group it seemed ridiculous to me to post a bunch of post on that new group right away. I wanted to do so in the same timing as I did with the older group.

I usually share a new post with my own page then with Star Trek and Star Trek Forever over the course of the next two days as those were the first two groups I joined. A day later I would share a post that was 4 posts older than the new on Everything Star Trek. A day after that I would share one that was about 20 posts-old in Star Trek Forever and Always and the Original StarTrekkers. Then a day or so later I would do the same in Star Trek Fan Page For Everyone and Star Trek Universe.

Okay not my stairs but you get the idea!

Last week I was in a horrible freak accident where I fell down a flight of stairs while carrying a laundry basket and I broke my leg. I am writing from there now and I wanted to say that the hospital doctors and staff at Central Maine Medical Center have been incredible. When I was able to access to social media again I got flood of loving messages from family and friends who because of the outbreak can’t actually come and see me. However there was also a note on several of my groups that a number of my posts were being pulled off as spam. At first I thought I was being spam-targeted by a fellow fan upset by something I had written. That had happened once before. However after taking with several of the administrators of the groups I am a part of we quickly determined that this was not the case.

The truth was worse: I was somehow caught up in an anti-spam algorithm. All of my links in all seven of my groups and my own personal page have vanished. My blog still exists safe at blogger.com but my connection to the Star Trek Facebook community reduced to a whisper. Now I want to be clear Facebook told me this was spam, it was not a trademark or copyright issue which normally would be covered by fair use anyway. I am very broken-hearten it is like getting kicked when you are down, or in my view hospitalized after surgery.

I messaged Facebook and they have not yet responded. To be frank customer care was never their specialty. As disappointed as I am by Facebook I can never say they cheated me. I had always been a defender of theirs and my defense was this: if you don’t like the product ask for your money back for you always get it. So I am now going to be looking for a new audience for my blog and I hope this can serve as a warning to others to be careful about sharing your posts too much you might not get invited back to the party.

GETTING READY TO FIGHT AND THE EARLY FIGHTING

2020-01-23T23:28:00.001-05:00

A review of Winston Churchill’s The Gathering Storm (1948)

Part of Winston Churchill’s World War II memoirs

(Rating 4 of 5)

In the last few books I read by Winston Churchill he was discussing the history of English-speaking peoples. That is a subject that he was not really that impartial about but he was certainly more so than about this topic. For this is the first volume of his personal war memoirs and World War II was the event that was going to define his legacy. Primary sources are always fascinating because you get into the head of the great actors who performed on the world stage. You get to see their point of view on everything, how they saw other historical figures, and their thoughts on individual actions. In that Winston Churchill never disappoints.

This volume, The Gathering Storm, divides into two books. The first book deals with Churchill as a parliamentary backbencher battling against the establishment, trying to alert the government and the people of the coming threat of the Nazi menace, and getting beaten back each time. The second book deals with Churchill as the First Sea Lord, the British equivalent to the Secretary of the Navy in the United States, managing the Royal Navy in the first year of the war. Of the two books I find the first and most interesting, it deals with a lot of political intrigue and the nature of humans particularly humans who have just gone through great conflict not too long ago. The second book I find almost kind of dull. It consists Churchill’s day to day running of the Navy trying to decide to place what admiral where, occasionally going to dinner with Prime Minister, and even though it’s about a great conflict doesn’t seem to have much drama until the fall of the Chamberlain Government.

In the beginning of this volume Churchill discusses the allotment of what led up to the war, like any good World War II story and he begins of course with a disastrous Treaty of Versailles. Churchill points out the one hand the treaty left Germany practically intact with the largest homogeneous racial block in Europe, while on the other hand it ruthlessly punish the Germans trying to force them to pay these indemnities that would give fuel to the anger in the average German that would lead to the rise of Adolf Hitler.

“The economic clauses of the treaty were malignant and silly to the extent that it made the modestly futile. Germany was condemned to pay reparations on a fabulous scale. These dictates give expression to the anger of the victors, and to the belief of their peoples the any defeated nation or community can ever pay tribute on a scale which would meet the cost of modern war.” (pg. 7)

He also discusses in length of the Great Depression. Americans tend to think of the Great Depression as an American event, it begins with the administration of Herbert Hoover is finally chased away by Franklin D. Roosevelt. But in reality the Great Depression was a worldwide phenomenon that hurt many nations including those in Europe. As bad as it was the American and British institutions survive the crisis, but many nations in Europe had governments that were now far younger and far more experimental. For those fragile regimes the Great Depression would destroy them, for the people had very little faith in them to begin with. Whereas the American and British Experience only saw the fall of politicians; both Herbert Hoover and Ramsay MacDonald paid the political price for being in office at the wrong time. That is not to say that either one could not have done better but universal blame is beyond ridiculous.

“The consequences of this dislocation of economic life became world-wide. A general contraction of trade in the face of unemployment and declining production followed. Care restrictions were imposed to protect the home markets. The general crisis brought with it acute monetary difficulties and paralyzed internal credit. This spread of ruined unemployment far and wide throughout the globe. Mr. MacDonald’s government, with all their problems behind them, saw unemployment during 1930 and 1931 bound up in their faces from one million to nearly three millions. It was said that in the United States ten million persons were without work. The entire banking system of the great Republic was thrown into confusion and temporary collapse. Consequential disasters fell upon Germany and other European countries. However, nobody starved in the English-speaking world.” (pg. 35)

I also found the view of Winston Churchill on what Germany should have done to be very interesting. Ever a loyal monarchist, Churchill believed that many of the defeated European nations instead of tossing off their old monarchies should just embrace the British model and retained the sovereign for at the very least to be a rallying figurehead with little actual power in practice even if substantial power was retained on paper. In Churchill’s view Hitler and the Nazi Party might have had a difficult time coming to power if Germany was able to retain a Kaiser in some form. He was disappointed in failure of German officials to carry that through.

“This policy, if achieved, would have filled the void at the summit of the German nation towards which Hitler was now in evidently making his way. In all the circumstances this was the right course. But how could Bruening lead Germany to it? The conservative element, which was drifting to Hitler, might have been recalled by the restoration of Kaiser Wilhelm; but neither the Social Democrats nor the trade-union forces would tolerate the restoration of the old Kaiser or the Crown Prince. Bruening’s plan was not to re-create the Second Reich. He desired a constitutional monarchy on the English lines. He hopes that one of the sons of the Crown Prince might be a suitable candidate.” (pg. 63)

Churchill was also does a great job explaining the political climate of the day. There was a very strong and powerful antiwar movement in Great Britain; these were people who believe the tragedy of the First World War was caused by nations running into the conflict with reckless haste. If anything the lesson I think we should take from this is not to be overly simplistic in politics. The antiwar movement in the 1930s was right about the problems of World War I but they’re completely wrong about the situation World War II. A generation later that antiwar movement would be in the right again and would find mainstream resistance mostly based on the legacies of the Second World War. In Churchill’s view although being a politician in such climate is hard it is no excuse for negligence.

“It would be wrong in judging the policy of the British Government not to remember the passionate desire for peace which animated in the uninformed, misinformed majority of the British people, and seem to threaten with political extinction any party or politician who dared take any other line. This, of course, is no excuse for the political leaders who fall short of their duty. It is much better for the parties or politicians to be turned out of office than to imperil the life of the nation. Moreover, there is no record in our history of any Government asking Parliament and the people for the necessary measures of defense and being refused. Nevertheless, those who scared the timid McDonald – Baldwin Government from their path should at least keep silent.” (pg. 112)

Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, who Churchill blames for Britain's failed state of readiness for World War II

One of the most interesting pieces of this book is the character of Neville Chamberlain. Most people remember Chamberlain from his embarrassing press conference in which he declared “peace in our time.” Most Americans tend to associate Chamberlain as the British Herbert Hoover, the out of touch in at political leader who is pushed aside for a more dynamic Roosevelt in the person of Winston Churchill. But nothing would be further from the truth. Roosevelt was a Democrat and Hoover was a Republican. Churchill and Chamberlain belong to the same party. Chamberlain died shortly after leaving office, he had been set to hold a position Winston Churchill’s Government and if he had he might’ve repaired his broken legacy. Since he can not, Churchill takes it upon himself to defend him. Churchill wants the reader to know that the true villain of the story was not Neville Chamberlain but rather Stanley Baldwin. In Churchill’s view Baldwin left the country dangerously unprepared and Chamberlain had little to work with. Chamberlain was tasked with buying time so Britain could prepare to take on Germany. Churchill says that Britain could never go to war for Czechoslovakia she just didn’t have the means. Chamberlain’s failure to block it was not a failure like most people thought.

Neville Chamberlain, not so bad?

“Thus an administration more disastrous than any other in our history saw all its errors and shortcomings acclaimed by the nation. There was, however, a bill to be paid, and it took the new House of Commons nearly ten years to pay it.” (pg. 180)
“There was also a serious and practical line of argument, albeit not to their credit, on which the Government could rest themselves. No one can deny that we were hideously unprepared for war. Who have a more forward in proving this and I and my friends? Great Britain had allowed herself to be far surpassed by the strength of the German Air Force. All are vulnerable points were unprotected. Barely a hundred anti-aircraft guns could be found for the defense of the largest city and centre of population in the world; and these were largely in the hands of untrained men. If Hitler was honest and lasting peace had in fact been achieved, Chamberlain was right. If, unhappily, he had been deceived, at least we should gain a breathing – space to repair the worst of our neglects. These considerations, and the general relief and rejoicing that the horrors of war have been temporally averted, commanded the loyal sent of the masses of Government supporters. The House approved of the policy of His Majesties Government, ‘by which war was averted in the recent crisis,’ by 366 to 144. The 30 or 40 dissident conservatives could do no more than register their disapproval by abstention. This we did as a formal and united act.” (pg. 326-7)

As I mentioned earlier the second part of the book is simply Winston Churchill as the First Sea Lord. It is a very good account of the day-to-day life of the First Sea Lord during World War II. This section of the book was hardly interesting until the government battle at the end. That battle resulted in the fall Neville Chamberlain’s Government. What is interesting is that Chamberlain was not forced out of office in any sort of landslide election. It is important to remember in a parliamentary system they have what is called a vote of no-confidence that has the power to bring down a prime minister. Chamberlain never received a vote of no-confidence his majority prevailed in Parliament. It had however gotten smaller and this concerned him seeing as he was trying to fight a war. Churchill urged him to stay on the Chamberlain felt he was too much of a lightning rod and a new government had to be formed with all the parties cooperating. Chamberlain suggested to King George VI that Churchill be appointed his place.

“The King had made no stipulation about the Government being nationally character, and I felt that it my commission was in no formal way dependent upon this point. But in view of what happened, and the conditions which had led to Mr. Chamberlain’s resignation, a Government of national character was obviously inherent in the situation. If I had found it impossible to come to terms with the Opposition Parties, I should not have been constitutionally debarred from trying to form the strongest Government possible of all who would stand by the country in the hour of peril, provided that such a Government could command a majority in the House of Comments.” (pg.665)

So the book ends with Winston Churchill becoming his nation’s Head of Government. He would be the coalition of all the parties against Nazi Germany. His actions in that office are the subject of the following volumes.

{Video is from the film The Gathering Storm 2002}

NOT THE END

2020-01-07T18:23:00.001-05:00

A review of Winston Churchill’s The Great Democracies (1956)

Part of the A History of the English-Speaking Peoples series

(Rating 4 of 5)

The first installment of the Winston Churchill's English-Speaking Peoples series covered thousands of years, the next two volumes averaged two centuries. The final volume only covers a mere eight decades, from the fall of Napoleon to the start of the 20th century. At no point does Churchill discuss his own career but he does talk about his father's. The book focuses on the changing political landscape in Great Britain, the expanding United States that would tear itself in half before becoming a world power, and wars in South Africa.

When in Great Britain itself, Churchill's main focus is on the rapidly changing society. The main focus is on the ever expanding franchise. As more people get to vote-although still just men--it changes the foundation of society. Issues such as public education, workers’ rights, and Irish Home Rule were moved to the forefront of political thought. Politicians, much to the horror of Queen Victoria, began to make direct appeals to the people. Two rival politicians who were masters of the new age of politics were William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli.

William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli

"We now enter upon a long, connected, and progressive period in British history--the Prime Ministerships of Gladstone and Disraeli. These two great Parliamentarians in alteration ruled the land from 1868 to 1185. For nearly twenty years no one effectively disputed their leadership, and until Disraeli died in 1881 the political scene was dominated by a personal duel on a grand scale. Both men were at the height of their powers, and their skill in oratory in debate gripped and focused public attention on the proceedings of the House of Commons." (p.219)

Queen Victoria is one of those historical figures whom there seems to be very little agreement on. She reigned for a long time but it was also during that reign that the crown lost a good deal of its actual power. That was for a number of reasons one of which had to do with ministers now gaining or losing their jobs not on royal favor but rather on the results of popular elections to the House of Commons. Churchill is very much in the Pro-Victoria camp. To Churchill, her role as Queen was essential to the rise of the British Empire. In his view, if the British Governments had been more willing to understand the peoples of the Empire as she did a lot of their problems could have been avoided, especially in Ireland.

Queen Victoria

"The Sovereign had become the symbol of the Empire. At the Queen's Jubilees in 1887 and in 1897 India and the colonies had been vividly represented in the State celebrations. The Crown was providing the link between the growing family of nations and races which the former Prime Minister, Lord Rosebery, had with foresight christened the Commonwealth. Disraeli's vision and Chamberlain’s enthusiasm had both contributed to this broadening Imperial theme. The Queen herself was seized with the greatness of her role. She sent her sons and grandsons on official tours of her ever increasing dominions, where they were heartily welcomed." (p.294)

Churchill's take on several of the American conflicts did not strike me as overly interesting, with exception of his take on the American Civil War. Churchill had no sympathy with the "Lost Cause" of the South; however he did have a respect for Virginia's position and admire Robert E. Lee for his principled stand. Most of his view is very traditional and he gives a good blow by blow account of the conflict. There is one position he takes that I found just amazing: he admired the military mind of George B. McClellan. This is one of those things that I would really like to talk to him about if I had a time machine. I consider McClellan to be something of a joke. A mediocre commander who was better at making speeches than fighting. Churchill thought otherwise.

Churchill had a rather traditional view of Lee: principled man with the wrong principles

"If these two Presidents had let McClellan and Lee fight the quarrel out between them as they thought best the end would have been the same, but the war would have been less muddled, much shorter, and less bloody." (p.170)

General McClellan, Churchill's views on him are outright bizarre

Now that I have reached the end of the series I must say that I am a little disappointed that we didn't get into the World Wars. The series was excellent, but really learned anything new but I am some who is well read on the subject anyway. I think the work is a good 101 look into British history. The series has a much stronger focus on events after 1485 than before it. The book is also an easy read not to bogged down in vocabulary, Churchill's personality strongly comes through you feel as if he is in the room with you explaining these events to you. I also want to make a small note on capitalization; I much prefer Churchill's style with words such as king, president, minister, general, etc. to be capitalized when referring to an actual person. ("The King mounts his horse." as opposed to "The king mounts his horse.")

RIGHT OF REVOLUTION

2020-01-01T22:29:00.000-05:00

A review of Winston Churchill’s The Age of Revolution (1956)

Part of the A History of the English-Speaking Peoples series

(Rating 4 of 5)

Churchill’s first volume in this series covered thousands of years (pre-history to 1485), his second covered only two hundred four (1485-1489), and this volume only covers one hundred twenty-six (1689-1815). Yet in this limited space of only three hundred pages Churchill covers the War of Spanish Succession, the War of Austrian Succession, the Seven Years’ War, American Revolution and War of Independence, and the French Revolution and Wars of Napoleon. Those are some pretty large topics. As I mentioned in the two previous reviews the most fascinating part about reading Winston Churchill’s history is he is such an important historical figure himself that it leaves everything with an added weight.

He begins where he left off in the last volume; King William III is establishing his new government in England. Churchill shows the King as being frustrated with England’s lack of enthusiasm for international adventures. England is also becoming less enthusiastic about their new Dutch monarch. Politicians in the Kingdom would go back in forth from supporting the monarch on the throne to the pretender over sea based on their own circumstances. Churchill explained that William tolerated this out of necessity, he had no heir and the people would naturally want to protect themselves if his government fell. His successor, Queen Anne, was even more tolerant of what could be viewed as treason. Of course Churchill shows her as even more conflicted about her own place on the throne to judge harshly others.

William III the Dutch King of England

“Queen Anne felt herself in her inmost conscience a usurper, and she was also gnawed by the feeling that she had treated her dead father ill. Her one justification against that self-questionings was her absolute faith in the Church of England. It was her duty to guard and cherish at all costs the sacred institution, the maintenance of which was bound up with her own title and the peace of the realm. To abdicate in favor of her Papist brother would be not only to betray her religion, but to let loose the horrors of civil war upon the land she ruled, loved, and in many ways truly represented.” (pg. 38)

Queen Anne, conflicted on the throne

Churchill clearly enjoys writing about his famous ancestor John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough. He actually wrote a whole biography on him. Churchill writes about his ancestors, the Duke and Duchess, and their contemporaries as if he personally knew them. I assume he had to have access to some of his ancestor’s documents and must also know of personal family stories.

Churchill's favorite ancestor

“Marlborough’s reign was ended. Henceforward he had to serve. His paramount position in Europe and with the armies made him indispensable to either party as long as the war continued. First he served the Whigs and afterwards the Tories. He served the Whigs as plenipotentiary and General, later he served the Tories as General only. His great period from 1702 to 1708, was over. There still remained three difficult campaigns, upon a scale larger than any yet seen; but he no longer had control of the policy which alone could render fruitful the sombre struggles of the Army.” (pg. 64)

With the end of Queen Anne arrives Great Britain’s modern royal family, the Hanoverians—though nowadays they call themselves the Windsors. The German speaking King George I was not interested in the day-to-day workings of government, he was only concerned with the final actions. Robert Walpole would, in the reigns of Kings George I and II, single-handily create the office that Churchill himself would one day serve. Although he made the office, Walpole did not invent the title.

“By his enemies Walpole was now mockingly called the ‘Prime Minister’—for this honourable title originated as a term of abuse. The chances of a successful Opposition seemed to be gone forever. ” (pg. 98)

Robert Walpole, called "prime minister" as an insult and the name stuck

Walpole might have been the first prime minister, but it was William Pitt the Elder, who would be the first person called to that office by a popular mandate and getting power through the support of the House of Commons. Churchill clearly admires Mr. Pitt, and I would guess he would feel some sort of bond for Churchill calls the Seven Years’ War that Pitt waged to be the true first world war. Considering the role Churchill would play in those twentieth conflicts he would naturally feel a connection between himself and the early prime minister. He might also see a connection with Pitt’s son William Pitt the Younger for the role he would play in the Napoleonic Wars.

“Whether Pitt possessed the strategic eye, whether the expeditions he launched were part of a considered combination, may be questioned. Now, as at all times, his policy was a projection on to a vast screen of his own aggressive, dominating personality. In the teeth of disfavor and obstruction he had made his way to the foremost place in Parliament, and now at last fortune, courage, and the confidence of his countrymen had given him a stage on which his gifts could be displayed and his foibles indulged.” (pg. 124)

William Pitt

When discussing the American Revolution Churchill gets quite interesting with his writing. His father was British but his mother was American, he once joked before Congress that if it had been the other way around, he would have probably have stood at that podium on his own merit. When discussing the Revolution he takes a bit of a pro-American side, but he is quick to remind his readers of the conflict that took place of both sides of the Atlantic. There were of course loyalists in America, but there were also those in Britain and in the British Parliament who strongly supported the cause of the Revolutionaries and felt that “no taxation without representation” was a good excuse to take a look at Parliamentary reform at home.

When the Revolution was over and the former colonies, now the United States of America, put together a constitution. Churchill would find that the U.S. Constitution was one of the great accomplishments of the English-Speaking Peoples.

“Of course, a written constitution carries with it the danger of a cramping rigidity. What body of men, however farsighted, can lay down precepts in advance for settling the problems of future generations? The delegates at Philadelphia were well aware of this. They made provision for amendment, and the document drawn up by them was adaptable enough in practice to permit changes in the Constitution. But it had to be proved in argument and debate and generally accepted throughout the land that any changes proposed would follow the guiding ideas of the Founding Fathers. A prime object of the Constitution was to be conservative; it was to guard the principles and machinery of State from capricious and ill-considered alteration. In its fundamental doctrine the American people acquired an institution which was to command the same respect and loyalty as in England are given to Parliament and Crown.” (pg. 210)

As I noted throughout this review the best part of reading Churchill’s history is get to get his take on other historical figures. His writing on George Washington is basic but nevertheless really interesting. After all it can be argued that Washington dealt the biggest blow to the British Empire in history, the Empire that Churchill himself held dear.

“George Washington holds one of the proudest titles that history can bestow. He was the Father of his Nation. Almost alone his staunchness in the War of Independence held the American colonies to their united purpose. His services after victory had been won were no less great. His firmness and example while first President restrained the violence of faction and postponed a national schism for sixty years. His character and influence steadied the dangerous leanings of Americans to take sides against Britain or France. He filled his office with dignity and inspired his administration with much of his own wisdom. To his terms as President are due the smooth organization of the Federal Government, the establishment of national credit, and the foundation of a foreign policy. By refusing to stand for a third term he set a tradition in American politics which has been departed from by President Franklin Roosevelt in the Second World War.” (pg. 283-284)

President Washington

When discussing the Napoleonic Wars I did not find anything particularly unique on his views. Since it was reality recent—historically speaking—I was hoping for more of a contrast between these wars and the wars the Churchill had to deal with in his own time. I suppose I might see more of that in his next volume.

In closing I must say that this was a great follow up to the other two volumes. He tries to cover a great deal of ground in very few pages but he does it rather well.

BRAVE NEW WORLD

2019-12-24T12:36:00.000-05:00

A review of Winston Churchill’s The New World (1956)

Part of the A History of the English-Speaking Peoples series

(Rating 4 of 5)

Churchill’s first volume, The Birth of Britain, covers thousands of years. This second volume covers only a little over two centuries. What a few centuries it was! The book begins with the rise of Henry VII and the Tudor dynasty and ends with the fall of James II in the Glorious Revolution. In this volume the English monarchy rises to its highest of heights achieving near absolute power. The three great Tudors Henry VII, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I were magnificent monarchs whose power went unquestioned. Their feeble replacements, the Stuarts, would struggle to hold onto what they had inherited and the monarchy would fall to its lowest states with one king being executed and another dismissed. Churchill captures all with magnificent style. As I noted earlier the best part about reading Churchill’s work is you get to see how a famous historical figure views other historical events.

Henry VII

The book begins with the aftermath of the War the Roses. With his new crown, King Henry VII, picks up the pieces of the short-lived York dynasty and sets the foundations of a powerful monarchy. During his reign Henry gave the reputation of being a something of a miser, but doing this help stabilize his regime. Churchill notes that although he was nice famous as some of his European cousins his achievements were no less impressive.

“His achievement was massive and durable. He built his power amid the ruins and ashes of his predecessors. He fiercely and carefully gathered what seemed in those days a vast reserve of liquid wealth. He trained a body of efficient servants. He magnified the Crown without losing the cooperation of the Commons. He identified prosperity with monarchy. Among the princes of Renaissance Europe he is not surpassing achievement in fame by Louis XI of France or Ferdinand of Spain.” (pg.20)

When any historian writes about King Henry VIII they all follow the same trap. What you talk about? Henry VIII had a lot of legitimate achievements during his reign. He set the foundation that would lead England on the road to become a modern state. Yet, we think of Henry is hard not to go over the six wives. Only the first three are important those marriages and how they ended change the road England would be on forever. Churchill does a good job covering the reign despite his limited space. (After all he still has over two centuries to cover with only a couple hundred pages to do it.)

“Henry’s rule saw many advances in the growth and character of the English state, but it is a hideous blot upon his record that the rain should be widely remembered for its executions. Two Queens, two of the King’s chief Ministers, a saintly Bishop, numerous abbots, monks and many ordinary folk who dared to resist the Royal will were put to death. Almost every member of the nobility in royal blood ran perished on the scaffold at Henry’s command. Roman Catholic and Calvinist alike were burned for heresy and religious treason. These persecutions, inflicted in solemn manner by officers of the law, perhaps in the presence of the Counsel or even the King himself, form a brutal sequel to the bright promise of the Renaissance. The sufferings of devout men and women upon the faggots, the use of torture, and the savage penalties imposed for even paltry crimes, stand in repellent contrasts the enlightened principles of humanism. Get his subjects to not turn from Henry in loathing. He succeeded in maintaining order amid the turmoil in Europe without Army or police, and he imposed on England a discipline which was not attained elsewhere. A century of religious wars went by without Englishmen taking up arms to fight their fellow-countrymen for their faith. We must credit Henry’s reign with weighing the basis of sea-power, with a revival of Parliamentary institutions, with the giving of the English Bible to the people, and above all with strengthening a popular monarchy under which the seating generations worked together for the greatness of England while France and Germany were wracked with internal strife.” (pg. 66)

Queen Elizabeth I

Like any good English patriot Churchill has a warm spot for the year 1588 the defeat of Spanish Armada. It was an important victory from England, they were only all half an island against the great imperial power. Arguably, the threat the Spanish represented was a greater threat to England as a threat Churchill himself faced in his own time. Despite his feelings he doesn’t go overboard with the legend, as fun as it would be to tell the story of the smashing of the great Spanish fleet he realizes history does not always work like that. Nevertheless, it was crowning achievement for Queen Elizabeth I.

“The English had not lost a single ship, and scarcely 100 men. But their captains were disappointed. For the last thirty years they believe themselves superior to their opponents. They had now found themselves fighting a much bigger fleet than they had imagined the Spaniards could put the sea. Their own ships have been sparingly equipped. Their ammunition had run short at a critical moment. The gunnery of the merchant vessels had proved poor and half the enemy’s fleet had got away. There were no postings; they record their dissatisfactions.
“But to the English people as a whole the defeat of the Armada came as a miracle. For 30 years the shadow of Spanish power had darkened the political scene. A wave of religious emotion filled men’s minds. One of the metals strike to commemorate the victory bears the inscription ‘Afflavit Deus et dissipantur’—‘ God blue and they were scattered.’” (pg. 102)

Spanish Armada

As England was getting to its feet the world the Europeans knew was expanding. The voyages of Columbus opened up to new continents that the people did not know existed. This created opportunity for the Europeans to create colonies. For certain English subjects it represented the opportunity to begin the world anew. For those who are proud of their Englishness but found England unbearable due to whatever corruption they viewed as inexcusable, such as the Puritans they no longer had to hang out in Holland. They now had the opportunity to build their own version of England in the form of a colony. In his previous work the English-speaking peoples they were just one people confined to one island, now they were many expanding across the globe. It was this phenomenon that Churchill gives the books title.

The first half of the book covers the English monarchy at its highest; in the second half we could see it at its lowest. Queen Elizabeth I died without heir. The crown of England passes to the King of Scotland. King James VI becomes King James I and moved from Edinburgh to London. Churchill had some fun poking fun at this joke of a dynasty in his last volume. As the Stuarts come to England they do not get any smarter. Churchill portrays these sovereigns as being out of touch with reality and not up to the task of governing England.

King James I

“James and his Parliaments grew more and more out of sympathy as the years went by. The Tudors have been discrete in their use of the Royal Prerogative and had never put forward any general theory of government, but James saw himself as a schoolmaster of the whole island.” (pg. 120)

Despite his flaws, I personally have some sympathy for King Charles I and it appears in the book that Churchill does as well. I have always found Cromwell to be an utter hypocrite and his regime to be more tyrannical than any king ever dreamed of being. While reading this book it seems Winston Churchill was of the same opinion.

King Charles I

Oliver Cromwell

“We must not be led by Victorian writers into regarding this triumph of the Ironsides end of Cromwell as a kind of victory for democracy and the Parliamentary system over Divine Right and Old World dreams. It was the triumph of some twenty thousand resolute, ruthless, disciplined, military fanatics over all that England has ever willed or ever wished. Long years in unceasing irritations were required to reverse it. Thus the struggle, in which we have in these days so much sympathy in part, begun to bring about a constitutional and limited monarchy, had led only to autocracy of the sword. The harsh, terrific, lightning – charged being, whose erratic, opportunist, self- centered course is laid bare upon the annals, was now master, in the next 12 years of the record of well – meant, puzzled plungings and surgings.” (pg. 212)

Earlier in this book we see King Henry VIII sending everyone and anyone including his own ministers and two of his queens to the scaffold to have their heads cut off. In a completely different turn of events a King of England is sent to his death in the very manner that his predecessor had imposed onto others. Yet this King, who many fought against him under the banner of fighting against tyranny, would be viewed as a martyr for liberty.

“A strange destiny had engulfed this King of England. None had resisted with more untimely stubbornness the movement of his age. He had been in his heyday the convinced opponent of all we now call our Parliamentary liberties. Yet as misfortunes crowd upon him he increasingly became the physical embodiment of the liberties and traditions of England. His mistakes and wrong deeds had arisen not so much for personal cravings for arbitrary power as from the conception of kingship to which she was born it was along with the settled custom of the land. In the end he stood against the Army which had destroyed all Parliamentary government, it was about to plunge England into a tyranny at once more irresistible and more petty than any seen before or since.” (pg. 216)

After the fall of the protectorate, Churchill tells the story of how the monarchy was restored. The king in exile, Charles II, was simply invited back by his people and not retuning at the head of conquering army. For a Stuart, King Charles II was not that bad of a ruler. He was fairly competent, unlike his younger brother, the Duke of York, who would succeed him as king, ruling as James II. Despite his historical importance Churchill tells the story of the Glorious Revolution very quickly. I expected it would be more detailed considering the involvement of his famous ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough.

I found this book to be a great summary of two chaotic and messy centuries in the history of Great Britain. It tells a story of a powerful dynasty that rises and dies off, a Scottish dynasty which unifies the kingdoms, and a civil war that tore the nations apart. It is a brief and great read.

THE START OF BRITAIN

2019-12-21T12:12:00.000-05:00

A review of Winston Churchill’s The Birth of Britain (1956)

Part I of the A History of the English-Speaking Peoples series

(Rating 4 of 5)

I always find it fascinating to read the works of great historical figures. Most of such work that I have read is autobiographical in nature: the historical figure discussing his own life and/or events that he had taken part. This is a little different. Here Winston Churchill is not talking about events that he took part in (at least not yet) he is instead discussing the history of his nation, people, and their legacy. What it interesting is reading a historical figure of Churchill’s stature commenting on the historical figures of the past and critiquing on how they did.

The history depicted in this volume is at very 100 college level. I did not learn anything new but again I am here to listen to Churchill’s take on these events rather than learning about the events themselves. Churchill has a very traditional outlook on past historical events he does not challenge the traditional narrative. He does tend to take some time explaining the importance of Magna Carta and tackles some of the charges against King Richard III. The books focus is rather broad but then it has to be. It covers everything from prehistory to King Henry VII establishing the Tudor dynasty of England.

Churchill takes the classical view that the Roman Empire was the height of Western Civilization and nothing to the coming of the Enlightenment could equal its grandeur. Churchill points out numerous technological advantages the Roman Britons had that their descendants would not for over a millennia and a half, such as running water. I was surprised with the amount of time he dedicated to Roman Britain that he just brushed over Constantine, who had made his bid to rule the Roman world in Britannia. His little made up example of a Roman Briton waking up in modern (1939) Britain is quite amusing.

“If a native of Chester in Roman Britain could wake up today he would find laws which were the direct fulfillment of many of those he had known. He would find in every village temples and priests of the new creed which in his day was winning victories everywhere. Indeed the facilities for Christian worship would appear to him to be far in excess of the number of devotees. Not without pride would he notice that his children were compelled to learn Latin if they wished to enter the most famous universities. He might encounter some difficulties in the pronunciation. He would find in the public libraries many of the masterpieces of ancient literature, printed on uncomely cheap paper and in great numbers. He would find a settled government and the sense of belonging to a world-wide empire. He could drink and bathe in the waters of Bath or if this were to far he would find vapor baths and toilet conveniences in every city. He would find all his own problems of currency, land tenure, public morals and decorum presented in a somewhat different aspect, but still in lively dispute. He would have the same sense of belonging to a society which was threatened, and to an imperial rule that had passed its prime.” (pg. 31)

Civilization high point, Rome

Moving on from the Romans to Anglo-Saxon England. Churchill covers the various little Kingdoms that quarrel with each other and ultimately form into England. He discusses figures that he admires such as King Alfred, who had to fight off numerous Viking invasions of England. Churchill also credits Alfred for being, what Churchill considers to be, the founder of the English Navy.

The Anglo-Saxon era comes to crashing end with the most important event in English history in the last thousand years: the Norman Conquest. Winston Churchill is very important to the history of England, but even he would have to say however that William the Conqueror is the most important. I in writing this review in English and you using English to talk to your friends give evidence the Norman Conquest happened. As in the influx of French words into the language that would turn Old English to Middle English, the ancestor of the language we speak today. England would become more main land European than Scandinavian. William would also from a new type of feudalism that would keep fiefs small and allow no one powerful baron to challenge him. From Churchill’s perspective it was William’s setup however that would ultimately allow freedom to flourish.

“In the Norman settlement lay the germ of constitutional opposition, with the effect if not the design of controlling the Government, not breaking it up. The seat of potential opposition was found in the counties, among the smaller nobility and their untitled descendants, Justices of the Peace and the knights of the shire. They were naturally for the Crown and a quite life. Hence after centuries they rallied to the Tudor sovereigns; and in another age to the Parliament against the Crown itself. Whatever else changed they were always there. And the reason why they were there is that William found the old West Saxon organization, which they alone could administer, exceedingly convenient. He did not mean to be treated as he had treated the King of France. He had seen, and profited by seeing, the mischief of a country divided into great provinces. The little provinces of England, with the King’s officers at the head of each, gave him exactly the balance of power he needed for all the proposes of law and finance, but were at the same time incapable of rebellion as individual units.” (pg.28)

Norman invasion

When going over the early Plantagenets I found points of disagreement with Mr. Churchill. First, I think there is no historical figure more overrated the Richard the Lionheart. Richard was an absentee king who spent more time crusading badly than he spent in England, where he was for less than a year of his reign. Churchill praises this guy to no end. Second, is with Magna Carta, another event I find completely overrated, a reactionary document that was nullified the next day, and praised for generations afterward. It was done to undermine King John, who I find to have been a better king than his brother and due the circumstances of the events of his reign I find to have a sympathetic figure. I think John was just trying to do his job. Churchill sees John as useful because his flaws led to constitutional developments that made his reign important to history.

One of the most overrated historical figures ever, but Churchill's hero

“In the thirteenth-century magnate understood little and cared less for popular liberties or Parliamentary democracy, they had all the same laid hold on a principle which was to be of prime importance for the future development of English society and English institutions. Throughout the document it is implied that here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. The reaffirmation of supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magan Carta; and this alone justifies the respect that men have held it. The reign of Henry II, according to the most respected authorities, initiates the rule of law. But the work was of yet incomplete: the Crown was still above the law; the legal system which Henry had created could become, as John showed, an instrument of oppression.” (pg.188)

The middle Plantagenets—the three Edwards—Churchill considers the formation of the early Parliaments to be the most important achievements of these reigns. Edward I for establishing and using it for lawmaking, and Edward III for making sure that the House of Commons existed.

In these chapters I found myself disappointed that Churchill never gives us an explanation to exactly why King Edward Longshanks is called “Edward I” despite the fact that there were three kings named Edward before him and one of them he was named after. Churchill never seems to notice; maybe he was embarrassed that the traditional historians of his nation have trouble counting once they get up to “3.”

Why is he "Edward I"

“Naturally the Commons stood in awe of the Crown. There was no long tradition of authority behind them. The assertions of the royal prerogative authority in the days of Edward I still echoed in their minds, and there was no suggestion that either they or Parliament as a whole had any right to control or interfere in matters of administration and government. They were summoned to endorse political settlements reached only in violence, to vote money and to vote grievances, but the permanent acceptance of Parliament as an essential part of the machinery of government and the Commons as its vital foundation is the lasting work of the fourteenth century.” (Pg. 263)

Edward III who established the Houses of Parliament

Toward the end of the book we run through the War of the Roses and get to the fall of the last Plantagenet King, Richard III, toppled by Henry Tudor. A lot has been said about King Richard III he has his own society that exists to this day. (I once wrote a bit of science fiction and had an editor who happened to be a member of this group.) Churchill takes the traditional position that Richard killed his nephews after usurping the crown of Edward V. Yet, Churchill acknowledges some of things Richard is accused of are absurd.

“Not only is every possible crime attributed by More to Richard, and some impossible ones, but he is presented as a physical monster, crook backed and withered of arm. No one in his lifetime seems to have remarked these deformities, but they are now very familiar to us through Shakespeare’s play. Needless to say, as soon as the Tudor dynasty was laid to rest defenders or Richard fell to work, and they have been increasingly busy ever since.” (pg. 354)

Richard III, guilty but not of everything

The first volume of Churchill’s English Peoples series covers a very broad scope, but it lets you know Churchill’s view on many subjects of his nation’s past from prehistory to 1485, in what Western historians refer to as the beginning of the modern period.

FROM LOATHED LIAR TO REVERED ELDER STATESMAN

2019-12-12T23:06:00.000-05:00

A review of Kasey S. Pipes’s After the Fall: The Remarkable Comeback of Richard Nixon (2019)

(Rating 4 of 5)

In addition to writing my book reviews on this blog, I will afterwards publish copies on Amazon.com and Goodreads.com. The difference of course is those copies of my reviews don’t come with pictures and video links. This July I was contacted by Jennifer Duplessie of Regnery Publishing. She had seen my review of Conrad Black's A Life in Full: Richard M. Nixon and wanted to know if I would like to have a new book to review and offered this one to me for free on the condition that I review it. I then googled Regnery Publishing to see what they are all about was and was very amused to learn that they were a right-wing publishing company that produces a lot of conservative- leaning works from Republican Party officials and right-wing commentators. I said I was amused because they clearly had no idea what my politics were. Just because I like someone’s biographical work does not mean I would agree with them on all their political positions or even most of them. But hey, free is free and I might enjoy reading something written by the other side and taking it apart. So I said "yes" and received it in the mail a week later. However I was still slogging through Winston Churchill’s World War II memoirs (reviews on that to follow) so was unable to get to it right away.

I began reading this book two weeks ago, reading a chapter or two a day. I have to say I was really glad I did. It is actually a very good book. It offers a view into a period of the life of President Richard M Nixon that is not often covered. Richard Nixon’s political career and presidency is arguably one of the most studied in the 20^th century. The only President of the United States who is forced to resign. The resignation and helicopter trip that the Nixons took after being escorted by his successor President Gerald Ford and First Lady Betty Ford is usually the end of the story. The pardon is spoken of but mostly in passing. Traditionally the narrative ends with Nixon waving goodbye. In this book that is where the story begins: a disgraced President beginning to look for his road to redemption.

Pipes ‘s writes with a smooth narrative that is easy to follow and understand. The book is broken down to chapters with the first third dedicated to Nixon crawling back into the public consciousness with a series of carefully placed moves that allows him to slowly convince the American public to give him another try.

Before he would begin his public rehabilitation he would first have to survive. Shortly after his resignation Nixon had a health scare that Pipes’s shows nearly killed him and did causing great financial damage as he had no health insurance at the time. This would add to President Nixon’s financial desperation which would be part of the later motivational fuel to get himself reestablished. Now this particular part of Nixon’s life I had read about before as it was covered in Bob Woodward’s Shadow.

Nixon in his post presidential office

Then we arrive at the Frost/Nixon interview. These were a mixed back for Nixon. It did give him an opportunity to tell his side of the story and it was the first attempt to go public again trying to shape the historical narrative of his presidency. Pipes writes that Nixon was a tad bit ill-prepared for the questions on Watergate. While the Frost/Nixon interviews were being done, Pipes explains Nixon had recently been working on his memoirs and he had just gotten to Watergate. He was now re-exploring those memories going over the materials that led to his downfall. Therefore he was not as well versed in everything that was encompassed by Watergate as Frost was. This leading into his stumbled statement of “when the president does it that means not illegal.”

Despite its flaws in the interview that he gave David Frost the exposure would start Nixon on his trajectory toward recovery. He would go on to write nine books, give more interviews, and become a foreign policy adviser for several administrations, not limited to his own party, up until his death.

Nixon returns with two other former Presidents to see President Reagan

James Buchanan, who when he left office in 1861 did so with the country being torn in two, in an effort to redeem himself in the public eye wrote and published his memoirs establishing a precedent that most future former presidents would follow. When Herbert Hoover left office in 1933 with the country in the middle of a severe economic depression, in an effort to redeem his image he would establish the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library. He was the first president to do such a thing who would then be followed by all subsequent presidents. Now Nixon forced to resign in 1974 was going to create a new type of post-presidency that would be mimicked by his successors.

James Buchanan

Herbert Hoover

“In fact, in the first ten years following Watergate, Nixon had done more than just survive as a former president—he had unknowingly established a template for future ex-presidents to follow. Before Nixon, former presidents in the modern era mostly stayed behind the scenes, Truman had returned to Missouri and Ike split his time between his farm in Gettysburg and Gettysburg and summers in Palm Springs. Neither of them made many public appearances or waded into public issues.
“But Nixon, largely because he wanted to rehabilitate his name—and in any case was never one for retirement—chose a different path. He made money from delivering speeches and writing books. He gave interviews with the media in which he tried to shape public opinion on important national issues. He became something of an elder statesman. The Nixon template is the template used by former presidents to this day.” (p.170)

Pipes describes a former president, who is always thinking of history’s judgment, and is working to make sure that the narrative that its very minimum would give him a fair shake. It was a virtual guarantee that his presidency was to be studied he wanted to make sure that it was going to be studied in all its aspects and he would try to influence this by befriending and is sometimes recruiting historians to take up his cause.

“The former president went out of his way to encourage any historian he didn’t think was a liberal. One of his favorites, a former Dole Senate staffer named Richard Norton Smith, burst onto the scene in the 1980s with a biography on Thomas E. Dewey that became a finalist for the Pulitzer. Nixon would write to Smith and compliment him as an ‘honest historian.’ It’s a telling remark that demonstrates how Nixon viewed the rest of Smith’s colleagues.” (p.179)

Nixon would even go so far not only to recruit a historian by the name of Jonathan Aitken , personally edit his work for him, and then go off and try to pitch the manuscript to various publishers. This was a hard sell because of its clear bias. There was one publisher willing to help him out. Any criticism I do have of this work by Pipes is right here. For this is a little bit of shameless promotion because the publisher of this book, Regnery, is the publisher that would ultimately pick Nixon’s biography written by his chosen biographer. Talk about being part of your own story!

“Nixon had feared that a book favorable to him could not win a contract in New York. So he planned accordingly. Having the book published was more important to Nixon than who published it. He urged Aitken to pitch his book to Regnery, the conservative publishing house in Washington. Aitken did so and found success.” (p. 245)

My favorite part about the book is how Pipes shows Nixon’s relationships with the five presidents who followed him into the White House. Nixon was still underground when Ford was in office; he actively worked to replace Carter; was a semi-formal advisor to Reagan until they broke over arms reduction; was cool to Bush; and surprisingly he was very warm with Clinton. The Clinton one is the most surprising, but in some ways understandable both presidents were students of history and could see past political differences.

Bill Clinton with an unlikely mentor

The only other thing that I felt was missing from this book was there was no mention of President Nixon acting as the arbitrator to settle a strike of professional umpires union against Major League Baseball. The fact that those in power baseball, which is America's past time, felt that he was the person to turn to help resolve one of their most important issues of the day I think is a major statement about how President Nixon was now viewed by the public.

Scene from Nixon funeral

In the end I do strongly recommend this book is a fascinating study and a new look at one of the 20^th century’s most important political figures facing a unique challenge and rising to that challenge with great success. President Nixon’s career is one of peaks and valleys and thanks to his tireless efforts he assured for himself that when he died he did so on top of a peak. Now that I read the book I enjoyed it to the point where I regret that I did not get to it right away as it was given to me by the publisher. However with holidays only weeks away and you are struggling gift idea for that history buff in your life this might be a good one.

{YouTube videos from CBS Network and 2achselhaare}

Game of Thrones is Over So Who was Actually a King or a Queen

2019-06-24T01:57:00.001-04:00

This is for people who have seen the series Game of Thrones in its entirety. For those of you who did not this is your only warning…Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers… Spoilers.

So the hit series Game of Thrones has come to an end and the fans are up in arms to the point one starts to question if they actually liked the show. I have to admit the end was kind of disappointing. I thought it was either going to be Jon kills Daenerys and takes the Iron Throne to rule as King Aegon VI returning the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros to their glory days or Daenerys was going to kill Jon and rule as a Queen of the Kingdom of Ashes. The first is the ending I wanted but the second I thought we were going to get and deserved. Of course I thought when Ned Stark went to the scaffold I was about to witness a dramatic rescue scene.

The ending we got something I was completely not expecting. The most important part involved the two primary charters that the series seemed to have centered around. Daenerys still died at Jon’s hands but instead of assuming the Iron Throne Jon went the back to what was left of the Wall and then, as far as I can tell, went to go live with the free folk north of the Wall. For the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros the North breaks away and the remaining six are suddenly transformed into the Holy Roman Empire. Yes, I did not see that last part happening.

On this blog I normally review history books and every now and again give a political opinion about something. However since George R.R. Martin bases so much of his fictional world, stories, and characters on real historical events and people it might be fun to take a look at Game of Thrones from that perspective. Throughout the series several characters laid claim to have been a king or a queen, the question I thought to answer would be how many of those characters would actual history books view as having been such? Who would make the official list of monarchs of their various kingdoms when professional historians, students, and armatures looked back at events centuries later? With that said let’s take a look.

Robert Baratheon

First claimed to be King: Prior to series start

Historically recognized: Yes

King Robert Baratheon was far and away the most successful king in the series

Robert Baratheon was first born son of the Lord of Storms End, a position that was one of the great lords paramount of Westeros. As a Baratheon he was closely related to the Targaryens. Robert’s ancestor Orys Baratheon was the bastard brother of Aegon the Conqueror and more recently his paternal grandmother was a daughter of King Aegon V. Robert inherited his father’s title while he was still a boy when his parents were killed in a shipwreck. Lord Robert then went to live with the Jon Arryan, the Lord of the Vale, as a ward to learn from him how to be a great lord. There he met Eddard Stark, second son of the Lord of Winterfell, who became his lifelong best friend.

When his attended Lyanna Stark ran off with Rhaegar Targaryen, Lord Robert believing that she had been kidnapped, or refusing to believe the truth, rebelled against King Ares II. Known as the Mad King, Aerys II had killed Rickard and Brandon Stark making Ned Stark the Lord of Winterfell. Jon Aryyan joined an alliance with his former wards against their King. Robert never gets Lyanna back but he kills Rhaegar and wins his rebellion. With the Mad King dead by Jamie Lannister and the Mountain killing Rhaegar’s family Robert ascends to the Iron Throne.

Robert’s claim is one of the greatest. It is even superior to that a king’s first-born son. It is the claim my big army beat your big army. What was won by King Aegon I can by lost by King Aerys II. Although King Robert did not like to see it that way, in his mind the rebellion was not his fault but a natural reaction to events where he as the victim. King Aerys II and the rest of the Targaryens fell from power naturally and he was the rightful heir being a great-grandson of Aegon V. Of course discovering Aerys’s other two children were still alive killed that narrative and he started to plot murder.

A good real life example is England’s King Henry IV. He overthrew his tyrant cousin King Richard II and claimed the throne for himself. Like Robert, Henry saw the rebellion as being not his fault but rather he was the victim of events. And also like the fictional Robert, the real Henry tried to pretend that he was the natural heir to the throne, but in the end he really ruled by right of conquest.

King Henry IV of England the real life Robert

In the entire series Robert is the strongest and most secure king. He reigns for almost two decades; he successfully puts down counter rebellions or secessionists, and all former houses that stood for House Targaryen have had to make their peace with him. At the time of his death King Robert I was the undisputed ruler of the Seven Kingdoms and clearly on any historians list.

Viserys Targaryen

First claimed to be King: Prior to series start

Historically recognized: Yes

The story of Viserys Targaryen: Woulda Coulda Shoulda

Old Pretender by rights should have been the King of England and who Viserys reminded me the most of.

This one might surprise people and I myself had to wait to very last episode before making this call. Now the first reaction might be “but this guy never really ruled how can he possibly be on any list”? True many would/should have been kings typically do not make any official list just look at the Old and Young Pretenders. However history has seen some would-be rulers recognized as legitimate monarchs; a great example is France’s King Louis XVII. Louis XVII was a child whose parents, King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette, were overthrown and killed during the French Revolution. He himself never ruled and died in the custody of the revolutionaries. After the fall of Napoleon the dead child’s uncle re-claimed the French crown. The new King called himself Louis XVIII, thus recognizing his nephew’s legitimacy.

King Louis XVII of France, never on the Throne but on the list

Born the second son of King Aerys II, Viserys spent his early childhood as a prince and the spare heir to the Kingdoms. When his brother fell before Robert and King’s Landing was about to fall, his father the King declared Viserys his heir and sent him with his mother, Queen Rhalle, to be smuggled out of Westeros. The Queen crowned Viserys when they heard of the death of his father. She died giving birth to his sister Daenerys, and the two children lived as beggars on in off in Essos. Viserys survives, makes friends, and even has allies strong enough to arrange a marriage alliance for his sister. However time in exile causes him to crack and become abusive towards his sister. In the end he is murdered by his own brother-in-law.

Like little Louis, it the success and the establishment of another relative, in this case his sister (see Daenerys section), that keeps Viserys III on a historians list of Westeros monarchs.

Balon Greyjoy

First claimed to be King: Prior to series start

Historically recognized: No

Balon Greyjoy, first in line a losers

First the Greyjoys were never kings. Even back when the Iron Islands had their own independent monarch it was not the Greyjoys. The last true King of the Iron Islands burnt in castle he built in Riverlands when Aegon the Conqueror torched it. That wiped out the last ruling family and the Targaryens eventually allowed the Iron Islanders to select a new lord. They chose the Greyjoys.

When Robert Baratheon overthrew the Targaryens, Balon wondered whether they should be loyal to the Iron Throne with a different family now controlling it. Balon declared independence for the Iron Islands and crowned himself king. Then Robert Baratheon showed up with his army and navy and kicked the snot out of him. Towers were torn down and his older sons were killed and his youngest sent to live with Ned Stark. Balon survived because he bent the knee to King Robert reestablishing the Iron Islands' connection of the Iron Throne.

As civil war breaks out among Lord Balon sees this as an opportunity to assert his independence again. Once more proclaiming himself King of the Iron Islands he is approached by his long lost son Theon. Theon offers him an alliance with Robb Stark against the Iron Throne. Balon wants to pay the iron price for his independence and learning nothing from his previous mistakes he convinces Theon if he truly wants to be iron born he must turn on the North. He sends his last son on a mission that was pointless where Theon got captured and his dick was cut off. That ended the ability for Balon to continue the family through a male line. He still had his daughter Yara who he liked better anyway, but she left to go find her brother.

After the war Balon is somewhat independent but that is just because no one is paying attention. His own brother shows up and throws Balon's worthless self of a bridge. At the end of the series Yara Greyjoy is in left in charge of Iron Islands but not as an independent queen but a lieutenant for a greater ruler. Without the ability to establish his own independent kingdom, Balon goes down in history as a petty lord who thought he was a king.

Mance Rayder

First claimed to be King: Prior to series start

Historically recognized: Maybe

Mance Rayder, one of history's great kings if Wildlings learn to read and write

I hate to sound really mean here but this one totally depends on how literate the free folk are. Mance Rayder a former member of the Night’s Watch who defected to the wildlings and ultimately united the tribes to earn himself the title “King Beyond the Wall.” The thing is though does anyone know how many Kings beyond the Wall they have had? It seems the only ones who may ever recognize Mance as a king may be the descendants of his adversaries to south. Maybe Jon Snow taking the title at the end might help change some things up north of the Wall in regards to literacy? Sam is not there though, so I doubt it.

Daenerys Targaryen

First claimed to be Queen: Season 1 Episode 6

Historically recognized: Yes

Queen Daenerys, everyone's favorite until those last few episodes

For eight years the fans of Game of Thrones got to watch Daenerys Targaryen go from scared exiled princess to young kalessi to strong queen to mad tyrant. That last one was a little hard for most of us to take. I did not mind the result just the execution at the end was far too rushed. However was she a true queen? The answer is yes. For one she was indisputably the Queen of Meereen. A second harder question is should she have been recognized as a Queen of Seven Kingdoms? There is an argument for her not to be. You can point out that she died so shortly after winning everything that she never had time to really be the queen. However there are two things one needs to consider. The first is she did, however briefly, rule it all. The second is she made a couple of appointments that would outlive her reign: Yara Greyjoy and Gendry Baratheon.

Appointed Lady of the Iron Islands

After losing the Iron Islands to her uncle Yara Greyjoy bends the knee to form an alliance with Daenerys in order to win them back. With House Baratheon now extinct Daenerys decides to legitimatize King Robert’s bastard and give him the family titles. Houses Targaryen and Baratheon were very close in the beginning and marrying in a number of times after. Yet Baratheons betrayed the Targaryens usurping them and depriving them of the Iron Throne they had built and sat on for centuries. Ironically Daenerys death and Jon Snow not accepting his legacy the Targaryens are now extinct but the Baratheons were saved by one the two acts of Daenerys.

Appointed Lord of Stroms End

When the Great Lords met at the end of the series Lord Gendry and Lady Yara were both among and recognized by them. And by acknowledging the legitimacy of those two they were by default acknowledging the legitimacy of Daenerys Targaryen.

Joffrey Baratheon

First claimed to be King: Season 1 Episode 7

Historically recognized: Yes

Joffrey Baratheon the child of evil

As much as it may pain me to say it yes Joffrey would be historically recognized. I know I can hear the cry “but he is an incestuous bastard.” However some facts need to be taken into consideration. First legally speaking he is the son of Robert Baratheon and Cersei Lannister for a husband always has presumed paternity over his wife’s children. During his lifetime King Robert never challenged his presumed paternity over Joffrey and his siblings. Also there is no way to really prove it short of public confession from Cersei or Jamie. There is no such thing as a DNA test in Westeros. Ned Stark’s recognition that “Joffrey is a blond Baratheon” may have been right but only a broken clock sense seeing it is actually a stupid argument. His mother’s family is predominately blond.

After his ascension Westeros plunged into civil war. However that war was won and when the dust settled Joffrey was left sole ruler. Despite his mother’s so called “Queen Regent” title Joffrey did primarily as he pleased as one could see with Ned Stark’s execution. In the end the only way he could be removed was with an assassin’s poison.

Stannis Baratheon

First claimed to be King: Season 1 Episode 8

Historically recognized: No

Stannis Baratheon, why did anyone like him?

Yes I know he didn’t show up on screen to season 2. But he been calling himself king the moment he got the raven from Ned Stark. However he never really becomes king. He has an army and he tries to become king but he never does. Stannis never controls any part of Westeros outside of Dragonstone was far as I can tell. He just keeps losing men and resources until he doesn’t have any anymore and Brienne of Tarth does him a favor and puts him out of his misery.

It is a good thing that he did not become king because Stannis wouldn’t have been a good one considering he is religious nut who lights people for not having the same religion, even his allies and relatives. And since his is a minority religion he would be burning a lot of people.

Some might consider him a rightful king considering the true parentage of Cersei’s children, however as I said there was no way to really prove that. Also being the rightful heir doesn’t really mean much just ask the Bonnie Prince Charlie or Viserys Targaryen.

The Young Pretender AKA The Bonnie Prince Charlie could tell Stannis how useful it was to be the rightful heir

Renly Baratheon

First claimed to be King: Season 1 Episode 7

Historically recognized: No

Renly Baratheon, the right and wrong choice at the same time

Renly was the only one of his brothers who had the right head to be a good moral king. Unfortunately he lacked the ruthlessness of his brothers to succeed in the world of Game of Thrones. Lord Renly should have arranged an assassination of his older brother Stannis the moment he heard that King Robert was dying. Without such ruthlessness he looked like a fool who had no real claim to the Iron Throne as he was trying to seize it.

Nevertheless it almost worked out for him, he kind or reminded me of gay version of England King Henry I, the youngest son of William the Conqueror who through great political skill ended up in control of his all the dominions of his father. However Renly was killed by a shadow creature before he could really rule anything.

King Henry I of England like Renly without being fictional, gay, and killed by shadow creature

Robb Stark

First claimed to be King: Season 1 Episode 10

Historically recognized: Yes

Robb Stark, we will never be over that episode

Despite the untimely end to a fan favorite character I have to stay he would be historical recognized. This is true even though his bid for the Northern Independence ended in betrayal and his murder as well as several more murders. King Robb certainly earned the right to be historically recognized through his great military prowess, but in the end that was not what did it. Like Viserys Targaryen, a man who earned no braids[i], it was actually they success of little sister who gets him on the list. Since Sansa is an independent Queen in the North at the end of the series Robb status as a historical King in the North is secured.

Tommen Baratheon

First claimed to be King: Season 4 Episode 2

Historically recognized: Yes

Tommen Baratheon, worked hard to get people to miss Joffrey

After we happily saw Joffrey die we never thought we would miss him. But then this weak loser made it clear that removing Joffrey was such a mistake. As bad as Joffrey was he would not have allowed his fear of violence, as he had none so long as he was in control, to prevent him from crushing a fanatical religious movement that ultimately kidnapped his brother -in-law, wife, and mother. Stand by and do nothing while they are tortured and humiliated. Nor would Joffrey had given in to said movement like Tommen even though it continued to harm those he cares for and put his mother in a desperate position. When Cersei finally struck back it killed more people than would have died if King Tommen had just crushed them the moment the sparrows first tried to block his path.

Best thing this loser ever did was throw himself out a window.

Yara Greyjoy

First claimed to be Queen: Season 6 Episode 5

Historically recognized: No

Yara Greyjoy hit her head on the iron glass ceiling

When we first meet Yara we do not know who she is and Theon hits on her before being told she was his sister. When he meets his father it is clear to Theon that Yara has replaced him as heir in his father’s eyes. To earn it back Theon betrays the Starks and goes on a mission for his father that ends in his literal emasculation.

Theon returns to partial recovered and more mature chooses to support his sister’s claim, only to watch his sister hit the iron island glass ceiling. Despite everything that happened the Ironborn were willing to have Theon as their leader over his sister, which means everything he went through was completely pointless! When Theon throws his support to Yara their uncle Euron shows up, and despite him having murdered the previous leader, is elected ruler.

Yara does eventually does get the Iron Islands. However she does so not as an independent power but rather an agent of Queen Daenerys Targaryen and after her King Bran Stark. So Yara goes down in history as the Lady of the Iron Islands not a queen.

Euron Greyjoy

First claimed to be King: Season 6 Episode 5

Historically recognized: No

Euron Greyjoy might have been the best Greyjoy but still a Greyjoy

This is one is rather easy. After taking control of the Iron Islands and proposing a possible marriage alliance with Cersei Lannister he could have possibly become a real king. However the winners write history and Euron, like all the Greyjoys, was a loser. Granted he was the most impressive member of his family and had some high moments but, like a Greyjoy, a failure in the end.

Cersei Lannister

First claimed to be Queen: Season 6 Episode 10

Historically recognized: I don’t know maybe?

Queen Cersei was interesting to the end

During the course of this series I often said that Cersei Lannister could be considered the greatest political player in the game of thrones if the world ended at the gates of Kings Landing. Unfortunately for her Westeros was a continent.

Now Cersei is undoubtedly a queen consort as she was married to King Robert for number of years. She played the role of queen mother for both Joffrey and Tommen. Although she called herself “Queen Regent” that was a joke, she was never Regent over anyone seeing as Joffrey did whatever he wanted and Tommen did whatever other people wanted. Now was she truly a Queen Regnant that is a queen who rules in her own right?

Succeeding Tommen on the Iron Throne was somewhat questionable to begin with because I am not sure what lawful claim she had to it. Also I am not sure how widely it was recognized. After Tommen’s death Highgarden, Dorne, and the North were in full rebellion. Daenerys controlled Dragonstone and also the Stormlands it would appear. So it seems just the Crown Lands and Casterly Rock recognized Queen Cersei. Eventually the Iron Islands when Euron came to town. Jamie took Highgarden but they had to trade Casterly Rock, which may have been a good trade but then Daenerys took Highgarden right back. Yara also took back the Iron Islands. So where was Cersei queen but Kings Landing?

Jon Snow

First claimed to be King: Season 6 Episode 10

Historically recognized: Yes

Jon Snow he really did no nothing including his own name

Well we didn’t get to see Jon publicly recognize his lost heritage and become King Aegon VI of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. However, as Jon Snow, he was proclaimed by his people to be the King in the North. Granted it was a title he only held for a minute before bending the knee to Queen Daenerys, but with young sister/cousin becoming Queen in the end he will be recognized in the Northern Kingdom as one of their kings. Also he might also now be King Beyond the Wall, again historical recognition for that may dependent on the Wildlings ability to read.

Sansa Stark

First claimed to be Queen: Season 8 Episode 6

Historically recognized: Yes

Sansa Stark, winner in the end

Once upon a time Sansa was the one Stark I could not stand. Yet watching grow from pawn to queen was one of the great arcs of the series. I did think it was odd that the moment they made her brother king she decides that the North is seceding. I would have thought the one thing to keep the North in their royal union would be Stark on melted throne. But as Eddard Stark’s last son ascends Sansa says “we are out”? However at the end of the series we see Sansa on her throne the established Queen in the North.

Bran Stark

First claimed to be King: Season 8 Episode 6

Historically recognized: Yes

Brandon Stark Holy Roman Emperor, I mean King of the Six Kingdoms

Who has a better story than Bran the Broken? Someone whose story does not involve riding on the back of Hodor whose running through a forest as they search for a tree. A story so exciting that it was left out of an entire season. Which is okay is because know everything that happened to him that season.

"Hodor"
"No, that is not the right tree."
"Hodor"
"No, that is not the right tree, either."
"Hodor"
"I know this is forest but we need the right tree not just any tree!"

I cannot think of another character whose storyline was more boring. If given the choice between going over Bran’s story again or reading his uncle Edmure Tully’s autobiography A Search for Respect: One Lord’s Journey, with a forward written by the late Theon Greyjoy, I would learn more than I ever wanted to know about the Lord of the Riverlands.

Brandon Stark AKA King Bran the Broken gets a reduced union of kingdoms, demoted from seven to six. The broken king gets a broken nation when his own homeland shows it's faith by leaving. Since we are told Bran cannot have children the remaining Kingdoms transform into a Westeros version of the Holy Roman Empire, with Bran as the first elected monarch.

HONORABLE MENTION

THE NIGHT KING

The Night King, I was hoping he would win

He won’t count historically because I am quite certain zombies do not count their kings, despite that he grew his own crown. However you do have to hand it this guy. Think of all great moments the Night King had.

The time where after defeating Jon Snow and the Wildlings on their retreat he takes all the enemy dead and raises them.

The time where he took down a dragon with a single spear shot that he threw and later used that same dragon to bring down the Wall.

The time where it looked like Daenerys was going to turn him into the Night Ashes but showed not only was he immune to fire but could stand in it and remain fully dressed. (It was that last one that actually drove Queen Daenerys in sane. Realizing that after all this time she did not have to go streaking though the fire was too much. She burned Kings Landing just to see any clothing survived the onslaught and if so to make her into her new outfit.)

It is true that he had terrible end but really who on show had a good one?

[i] Season 1 Reference.

SOMEONE MIGHT WANT TO TELL TRUMP THAT A PARDON IS A CONFESSION

2017-07-29T00:45:00.000-04:00

Recently Americans have been hearing rumors that President Trump may choose to pardon himself and if he does not pardon himself may pardon members of his family (say his oldest or his son-in-law) or friends (Michael Flynn). This has triggered a debate in the media if a president could pardon himself and his family. Or it was causing a debate until the President decided he would go harass transpeople who were trying to serve their county and thank the Boy Scouts of America for voting for him. Now to if he has the power, I would actually say he does just because the President’s power of pardon is not limited in any way in the Constitution; and considering the Founding Fathers’ concern with checks and balances it is a surprising omission.

However what Trump is probably not aware of, and how could he be with this lack of knowledge of the US Constitution; US Government; or US history, is that a pardon can be problematic for another reason. A reason I first learned when reading Bob Woodward’s Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate. That accepting a pardon is a kin to admitting guilt. How so? Read on.

President Richard Nixon decided not to take a chance on pardoning himself and the inevitable Supreme Court challenge that would create. Nixon did not have a lot of luck with Supreme Court challenges of late. So he waited on a pardon from President Ford. At the time Woodward was angry about the pardon, but over time came to the same conclusion as the historical consensus that the pardon was the right thing. Nevertheless, he still had an objection to the execution of the pardon. Woodward felt that Ford should have insisted on a public confession and apology from Nixon. That may have actually quieted down the uproar that followed.

Nixon thought about pardoning himself

President Ford pardoned Nixon because the issue had become a distraction and made it difficult for him to govern. Ford knew Nixon would not accept a public shamming session so the show would go on if Ford chose the path that Woodward would have liked. Ford did have one trick up his sleeve, or more so his pocket. Ford carried around with him a copy of a Supreme Court decision from the time of Woodrow Wilson. The decision was Burdick v. United States. In this case poor Mr. Burdick was as a local editor was being squeezed by Federal prosecutors to reveal his source in leaked information from the Treasury department. Mr. Burdick pleaded the fifth and refused to answer[1] on the grounds of protection from self-incrimination. So the prosecutors contacted the White House and Mr. Burdick was handed a pardon by President Wilson. Now he could longer plead the fifth. Mr. Burdick still refused and the case went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that Burdick did not have to testify because he had the right to reject the pardon. Because a pardon was an act of forgiveness and by accepting a pardon he is in fact confessing to what he was being pardoned for. His Fifth Amendment rights allowed him to refuse.

Ford, by pardoning Nixon, got him to confess

Ford offered Nixon a pardon. Nixon accepted the pardon. Nixon had confessed, and that had satisfied Ford’s personal morals even if it did not win over the American public.

If Donald Trump tries to pardon himself he is confessing to the world that he is a criminal.

If Donald Trump Jr. accepts a pardon from his father he confessing to the need for a pardon and considering the content of his emails we know what the pardon is for.

If Jared Kushner accepts a pardon he is a crook just as big as his father.

If Michael Flynn accepts a pardon then we can write the Russian Espionage case as a fact in the history books with Flynn being a modern day Alger Hiss. The only question would be is the Republican controlled 115^th Congress a group of integrity and character enough to do the right thing? Or are they worthless weasels and we will have to wait for the 116^th?

{Video is a clip from CNN}

[1] It is interesting he plead the fifth and not the first but these were different times.

JOEY AND BOBBY EXPLORE TRUMP’S AMERICA

2016-11-06T03:55:00.000-05:00

(I saw an internet meme similar to this and I thought I would expand on it. I tried to find it again but with all the election stuff going on it proved difficult.)

2014

Joey: I can’t believe Donald Trump is thinking about running for President. What is our country coming to when men like him are having their names seriously considered?

Bobby: Joey, you worry too much man! He said he was going to run both 2012 and way back in 2000. Nothing ever came of it. He is just trying to promote viewers for his dippy TV show. Have a little more faith in America.

2015

Joey: He’s doing it, he is actually doing it! Donald Trump is running for the Republican nomination. He even seems to have a large following.

Bobby: So we have a bunch of over excited Apprentice fans. Trump is clown. Did you see him in the debates when talking about his hands? He is an exposed fool and is going nowhere.

"Big Hands"

2016

Joey: This election is getting very tight. He bombed the debates but he isn’t slowing down. I was originally going to vote for Stein because I couldn’t vote for Sanders. But I think I have to vote for Hilary now, I don’t want Trump.

Bobby: Look at the polls, Trump doesn’t stand a chance. He is going to get his butt handed to him. I refused to be scared to vote for a candidate that I don’t really like. We need to vote our values, Trump won’t win anyway. Look at the polls.

Keeps talking even if it isn't his turn.

2018

Joey: I don’t like what’s going on here it’s like the President is in pissing contest with other world leaders. In his last speech he says he’ll fire the nukes if he doesn’t get compliance. President Trump said the he will fire the nukes!

Bobby: President Trump may be a jerk but he is not insane. He is just talking tough. Everyone knows how bad it would be if he were serious. No one is nuking anyone.

Nukes

2025

Joey: I thought living under a nuclear winter was bad, barley any sunlight and always food shortages. But now we have nuclear mutated talking giant lizards. Those lizards are smart. I can’t believe not only are we fighting for our existence but it looks like we may no longer be the top species on the planet!

Bobby: Last we’re going to do is take orders from giant lizards who just learned to talk! We’re humans we’ll get through this. We may have messed up a lot of things but we’ll always have our freedom for this planet is ours!

2029

Joey: {crying}

Bobby: Joey, lighten up. I’m glad you got here early I need some help cheering everyone up. Now listen guys there are a lot of nasty rumors floating around. So I want to make some things very clear. I know my Giant Lizard Master loves me. As I am sure yours loves you. They would never do anything to hurt us. That is why they have a veterinarian for humans, to take care of us. Now I know our Lizard overlords would never castrate us in order to keep our population under control. That is not what a loving master does. Our masters need there workers reproducing. We have nothing to fear. Joey you were the first one here this morning tell we have nothing to fear.

Joey: {cries harder} I should have voted for Hillary.

Your Lizard Master!

On Tuesday go out and vote for Hillary Clinton. In doing this you will save humanity, and if your a guy, also your balls.

THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE DEBATE (TO ME)

2016-09-30T02:24:00.000-04:00

As a reluctant supporter of Hillary Clinton, due to the fact that my preferred candidate never got in the race, I was very concerned going into Monday’s debate. This is because I know Donald Trump was the more likable of the two. This is part of what made him such successful media and ultimately reality TV personality. It is this charisma that allows him to go on several racist rants, such as questioning a judge’s ability to be impartial because of Mexican ancestry or insulting gold star parents who lost their son, without the normal social consequences that would typically befall a candidate. No matter what he says a good portion of his supporters brush it off like they would some random statement their crazy uncle made. “He may be politically incorrect but at least his heart is in the right place. He is not really racist he just says occasionally things that men of his generation say.”[1]

American presidential election history has shown when a more likable candidate goes against a person who perceived to be more experienced they have a built in advantage. They don’t have to win the debate; all they have to do is look presidential and the voters will go with who they like. Examples include Kennedy vs. Nixon in 1960 and Bush vs. Gore in 2000. In both cases the more likable John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush were able to strengthen their candidacies against the incumbent Vice President, Richard Nixon and Al Gore[2]. In both years the incumbent party was coming off a popular presidency and they were expecting triumphant victory but what they got was a close race and the White House going to the challenger[3].

So I was concerned that Donald Trump would follow this pattern. Fortunately America ended up seeing the worst debate performance in presidential history, surpassing even 1976 when Gerald Ford seemingly forgot the Iron Curtain existed.

For me, the most important part of this debate was not Trump admitting he doesn’t pay taxes, his frequent interruptions of Clinton when it was her turn to speak, admitting he didn't pay taxes, or coming unhinged while claiming he had great temperament. To me the issue was his birtherism, and how he is so proud of himself for creating enough noise in the media to get Obama to release his birth certificate.

The reason I find this so important because I remember it when it first happened. Trump flew in down in one of this Trump helicopters stood in front of reporters and announced how deeply proud of himself that he had harassed the first African-American President to the point he had to show his papers. Here is a video of that day.

When this memory was triggered another memory immediately popped up. Trump’s replaying his pompous pride of his birther roots brought back not only the memory of his foolish helicopter press conference, but a more pleasant memory of national nightmare ending when in less than a week after Trump’s prideful announcement President Obama announced this:

He was dead. The number one of the United States of America in the 21^st century, Osama Bin Laden was dead. U.S. Seal Team 6, acting under the orders of the President, went into Pakistan and killed him. Just as then-Senator Obama had promised to do during the 2008 campaign.

Bin Laden

So while Donald Trump was looking in Hawaii for a birth certificate for a man whose birth was announced in the local newspaper nine days after he was born, our President was hunting down the most horrific terrorist in U.S. history. He wouldn’t stop with Bin Laden either.

So talk about priorities! While Trump worked on his TV show and mounted a campaign saying one hurtful remark after another, President Obama was making America safe from its enemies by crippling the organization of al-Qaeda by killing off all its leaders. It was quite an improvement over the previous president who vowed to bring them to justice but got lost in Iraq. President Obama took the fight right to the enemies by, in his words, “using a scalpel not a hammer” to solve problems.

Donald Trump was proud of himself for his work as birther, I however am proud of my President.

{Rule on comments any comment that doesn't directly refer this post will be deleted.}

[1] Those are the least scary of his supporters, the worst ones are those who hear his bigoted statements and get excited by them.

[2] To be fair both Nixon and Gore also made serious errors in their respective debates. Nixon refused to wear makeup not understanding how that would reflect on his appearance on television and Gore kept sighing and going on about his “lock box.”

[3] Although in Gore’s case he won the popular vote.

ADAM (My Tribute to my Fallen Cousin)

2016-04-24T04:48:00.001-04:00

It is summer time in the very early 1990s; my sisters and I are spending the night at our Aunt and Uncle’s house in Bridgeton, Maine. My cousin Heather and I are the same age (well she is a few months older but we were both born in 1981) and her brother Adam was born in 1986 right in-between my sisters Mia (1985) and Juliann (1987). My sisters are staying in Heather’s room and I am staying in Adam’s. Basically, Heather gets to see what it’s like to have little sisters, while I have opportunity to see what it would be like to have a little brother. Which is great, we spent most of the day playing Ghostbusters and GI Joe, and the best part was he never asked if I wanted to play with Barbies. As I lay there half way between being awake and asleep I hear his voice.

“Jeremy.” Adam calls to me.

“What?” I ask.

“I have to go the bathroom.”

“Okay. Go.”

“I can’t I am scared”

“Why?”

He didn’t answer so I said, “Okay come on. I’ll show you there is nothing to be afraid of.”

We get up and walk to the door in his room. He looks out the door left and right. “Oh” he says. “I thought as soon as I walked out the door all the objects in the room would get up and start flying at me.”

Now very much relieved, he heads downstairs by himself to the bathroom and am left in his room wondering what movie he watched that led him to believe this silly thing.

The family in 1990. Adam and I are on the right next to our grandfather. Our fathers are in the center back in front of our mothers.

***

It is now 1996, Adam and his family have come visit mine here in Windham. One of the things we typically do during his visits is take my dog Rex, a springier-basset, on very long walks. Normally, when by myself, I walk around the block with my dog two or three times. However, when Adam comes over my dog gets excited because he knows we are not only going around our block but we'll also explore the next three neighborhoods as well. Adam comes from a cat family so walking and interacting with a dog excited him a little more than most people.

During these walks we discuss all the interesting things a fifteen year old and ten year old would normally discuss. Such as differences between middle school and elementary school or what TV show was popular that we both liked. Adam was also into POGs that I feigned interest just to amuse him. (I was trying to be a good older cousin.) During this walk Rex was proudly marking his spot almost every two feet. This led Adam to have a sudden observation.

“Jeremy, I have come to a conclusion. I think dogs must be made of Ninety percent piss.”

“Yeah, that’s about rate.” I responded. “At least Eighty-Five.”

My boyhood dog Rex, whose desire to pee on everything during walks convinced Adam dogs were made mostly of urine.

***

It is 1998. I am enjoying a Rotisserie chicken from Hannaford. Adam is over with his father; Adam, who is a vegetarian, looks at what I am eating and says, “Hey Jeremy, are you enjoying your carcass?”

“Yes.” I respond rather bluntly.

He then went on a rant about the moral virtues of vegetarianism. Adam also stated how he and his fellow vegetarians are discriminated against by society.

“How?” I ask rather bluntly.

“Well, yesterday at school we had hamburgers for lunch. So I went up and asked ‘what is the vegetarian alternative?’ And do you know what they said? They said, ‘chicken!’”

I start to lose it laughing.

“Hey, that is NOT funny.”

“Yes it is.”

***

It is the summer of 1999 we are at the camp my family rents in Denmark, Maine. Adam’s family has come over to spend a night with us. My father has seen on multiple occasions big frogs consuming little frogs. We decide this is something we want to see so we take the canoe out and paddle along the shore line to see if we can see it happen. When this does not occur we decide to force the situation. We capture a big frog and two little frogs and place them in the canoe with us. We then paddle middle of the pond and stare at them waiting for nature to take its course.

We learned some important things. The first is that captivity and voyeurism don’t inspire cannibalism. That was disappointing. The second lesson was harder. Since they weren’t going to eat each other we decided to test how long it would take them to get the shore. So we released the smallest one and tried to follow it. We quickly lost that frog so we tried the other small one. While we were following it we made too sharp a turn and I still remember the look on Adam’s face as he, myself, and the big frog all went into the water.

Panicking we pushed the canoe to the opposite shore line of camp. We then tipped the boat to empty the water in it. I looked out and saw our paddles floating so I swam out to get them. Once we got the water out and made sure we had all the life jackets we headed back. At Adam's suggestion we should apologize to our parents for what happened so they wouldn't be angry and prohibit us from going in the future. We found our fathers sitting on the porch and we did as Adam suggested. Their response was simply to laugh themselves stupid.

The next day Adam said to me, “Jeremy, last night I had a strange dream.”

“About what?” I asked.

“We were in the canoe and..”

“Tipped the boat, yeah that was real.”

“Not that. What happened was we were in the canoe out on the middle of the pond and giant frog emerged from the water. He said he was going to eat us for our crimes against frogs.”

“Did we get eaten?”

“No, it said before it ate us it wanted to have its favorite snack: little frogs. He wanted to know if we had any and I pointed him in the right direction. He turned to find some and we hurried back to the camp.”

Adam and I at Christmas with Nana

***

It’s July 4, 2001. Most of the family is at Nana and Papa Perron’s place having 4^th of July meal of steak and corn on the cob. Adam’s just having corn on the cob and a veggie burger. As it turns to evening we want to go see fireworks, rest of the family are hesitant because it might rain. But at this point in my life I have a license and a car, Adam and I took my 1985 Chevrolet Caprice all the way to Naples for the fireworks show along the Songo River. And rain it did! In fact it started to storm, the fireworks were cut short and people started to leave. But Adam and I decided it would be good fun to run out to the dock screaming at the storm like Lt. Dan in Forrest Gump.

Then things got kind of weird. It started to hail in the middle of July. One piece of hail hit Adam so hard it broke the rim of his glasses. We decided the storm won and we retreated to my car. When we got in I turned the heat on, something I have never done in July before or since. As we headed home I lost my focus and forgot to turn my high-beams off at points when I should have.

“Jeremy you just beamed that guy.”

“That’s okay Adam. The guy before beamed me and that makes it even.”

“I don’t think that’s the way it works. In fact Jeremy, you have an awfully odd way at looking at the world. Do you think there is a world committee tracking you and keeping score? Jeremy vs. the World, the score 1-1. ”

Oct 2001 cousins photo: Adam's in the front, I'm in the back, and we're separated by our sisters.

***

It is June of 2003. Our uncle Peter Perron, our fathers’ brother, had been killed in car accident and we’re at his funeral sitting there in the middle row of the seats. The service hasn’t started yet, and our parents are at front discussing it. We are wondering what will come of our aunt and how she will cope with this. Peter had been full of life and we are overcome by the suddenness of death.

Our Uncle Peter Perron who we lost in 2003

***

It’s 2008. Adam is no longer a vegetarian. Since High School, he fell in love with a farm girl named Beth. I affectionately nickname her the “Chicken Killer” since her family raised their own live stock. Adam’s favorite food now is a good steak and he has a hunting license. We’re both still nerds but I am history buff while he is a science geek. This is great because we are both experts that can educate the other one. I tell him things, he tells me things, and we both learn a lot from each other. On Christmas he gives the book “A Short History of Nearly Everything*” That I have reviewed for this blog.

***

The Family as it was Easter 2010 (You can see my head poking up in the very back behind my mother. Adam is to the left of me and his wife Beth is right in front of him.

It’s July 31^st, 2010. Adam and Beth are getting married. I tried to tell them to do it February 27^th. That is my sister’s birthday; two weeks ago Mia married her husband Francis on Adam's birthday (July 17^th) exactly. Mia became vegetarian like Adam use to be and had vegetarian wedding. The food was not pleasing to me. Fortunately the Chicken Killer’s family didn’t let me down. They made plenty and lots of left overs. I was eating steak and chicken all day!

***

It’s 2012; I lend Adam and Beth my Deadwood DVD collection to give us something more to talk about. They watched in record time and like me hated the ending, but loved the series.

Adam and his farm girl

***

It’s 2013 New Years. I am with Francis and Mia as a guest at Beth and Adam’s. We spend the night playing the Settlers of Catan. Beth is very good at this game. Seriously good, if there a professional Settlers of Catan League she would be their Tom Brady. One of their dogs (they have two dogs now) ate one of my red roads. This causes my brother-in-law to lose his mind. (Francis is a very serious Catan player, but not as good as Beth) Adam then makes a new red road out of a match stick. It is now the favored piece in that Catan set.

***

It’s September of 2014. Adam and Beth now have a daughter. Abigail Katherine Perron was born on September 6. I came up to see them a week after and I brought Pizza so they wouldn’t have to make dinner. I met the baby and I was the first of their extended family to come visit. When I arrived I was first greeted by their two dogs. I asked Adam when it clicked emotionally he told me this:

“I felt an emotional bond immediately. However, the moment I felt profound change is when we brought her home and closed the door and at that moment I knew my life had now changed and this was going to be my new reality.”

Adam's new joyful and short-lived reality

***

While my own career in education had fizzled out I was proud that he was able to become a successful teacher at Lake Region Middle School.

Then on April 20, 2016 a horrible thing happened. This time things did go flying at him as a box truck slammed into his car. The only good thing—if there can be—, unlike when he was a child, he wasn’t scared. He couldn’t be, there was not enough time. It didn’t matter, the damage was done and he was gone.

I was at their house the day before yesterday. His daughter was napping; when she woke she was upset. Her mother brought her out and there was a crowd of people, Abby looked around the crowd but the person she was looking for wasn’t there. For he is gone.

In coming weeks, the local police will try to put together exactly why the truck turned the way it did. As I go to his funeral today no doubt there will be people there looking find some sort of meaning to why he died. But I won’t and I hope most won’t either. For there is no meaning in death, it just is. I read a lot of biographies and that is the way the story always ends. Our meaning is in life. It is what we do with our time that matters. Adam’s life was cut short before he could complete three decades but not a moment was wasted. I can’t say that about most people, especially myself.

Rest-in-peace, dear cousin.