Blog Shift

Hey Folks!

I am posting this to inform you that I have decided to consolidate my history writing with my fiction writing and instead of having two separate Blogs I will now only have one Blog that will feature my entire writing resume' in one place. Maintaining two Blogs has become too much. I am currently in the process of transferring my info. from this site to the new site. You can find it here at this link:

www.ejdagrosawriter.blogspot.com

I want to have just one Blog for all my writing and writer platform.

All of you are welcome to follow the Blog at the new address.

Thanks,

-E.J. D'Agrosa

Hiatus

As most of you know I am an aspiring fantasy author. I am currently working on a novel. I have tried to maintain this Blog, while also writing the novel. But, it has become a bit difficult to do this. So, I am reluctantly placing this Blog on hiatus status for an extended period of time so that I can devote the full extent of my time to my fantasy novel. I am not deleting the Blog, and I do intend to return to Blogging about history after I get my novel finished. I enjoy this Blog, but it simply has become to much to manage. So, for the time being I am taking a rest.

Thank you for all the reading and comments. I hope to see you soon, and hopefully as a published author.

E.J. D'Agrosa

P.S. The "Democracy in America" series will continue when I return.

Jackson and the Modern-Day Democrats

Andrew Jackson
U.S. President 1829-1837

Andrew Jackson, a fiery man of Scotch-Irish descent from the backwoods country of the old American frontier (the western Carolinas, and Tennessee) had forged a name for himself in the war of 1812, most memorably at the Battle of New Orleans. He earned the name "Old Hickory" for his toughness and always being willing to fight. He fought in many duels, and even killed a man. Jackson became president of the United States in 1829 after a bitter election fight. He was by large appealing to the "common man". He is also considered to be the founder of the modern-day Democratic Party. During his time in office he is most noted for his "spoils system", derived from the old phrase, "to the victor goes the spoils." Jackson believed in giving back to his supporters who helped get him elected; a sort of quid pro quo (this for that); a system that is still in place today. For an example see here.

While in office, Jackson is most famously known for his dismantling of the Bank of the United States (BUS), which he deemed was a threat to the freedom and liberty of Americans. He was infamously known for his "displacement" of the Native American tribes, namely the Cherokee from Georgia when gold was discovered there. Jackson believed he was actually helping the Indians. Most did not view it that way. Jackson was not liked by many and he had made many enemies. The British Prime Minister during WWII Winston Churchill once said on enemies; "You have enemies? Good! That means you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." During Jackson's presidency his opposition was the Whigs, who derived their name from the opposition party of Britain's Parliament who defied the king. Their leader was Henry Clay. Drawing inspiration form this they cleverly drew up comparisons likening Jackson to actually being a king.

Whig political cartoon
depicting Andrew Jackson as a king.

The Whigs, also called the national republicans favored a strong centralized government. They tended to be elitist, and didn't think kindly of the common man. They favored reform movements like temperance and abolition of slavery, among others. They held a loose interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. They saw government involvement in business and the economy as okay. They garnered support typically from the northeast from industry and commerce.

cartoon depicting Jackson taking on the BUS.

In contrast to the Whigs, the Jacksonian Democrats considered themselves an off-shoot of the old Jeffersonians. They were in favor of States' Rights, were for the common man, and not the elites. They didn't often go after reform movements. They believed in a strict interpretation of the Constitution and favored a laissez-faire (hands off) approach to the economy. They saw government involvement as the problem not the solution. Jackson was himself a self-made man. The Jacksonians tended to garner support from the south and west, or more rural parts of the country.

When one considers the modern-Democratic platform espoused today, it appears that most have forgotten what their "founder" stood for. It looks as if the modern Democrats have taken on the persona of the Whigs, the opposition to Andrew Jackson than of Jackson himself.

It All Began at Runnymede...

Our next chapter in Democracy in America will discuss the origins of the Anglo-Americans. The American Revolution is often contrasted with the Revolution in France, and it is often asked what made the two so very different? One part of that answer is Magna Carta. In 1215, the barons of England forced King John to sign the "great charter" which established the rule of law and shaped the history of that nation and its people for the next 800 years. Why is the Magna Carta so important to America as well? It was the forerunner to our very own independence. I am planning a much larger post on this topic.


"At Runnymede, at Runnymede, your rights were won at Runnymede! No freeman shall be bound, or dispossessed of freehold ground, except by lawful judgement found and passed upon him by his peers. Forget not, after all these years, the Charter signed at Runnymede." -Rudyard Kipling

Read the full poem here.

Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" Book I Chapter One

Democracy in America
Book I - Chapter One: "Exterior Form of North America"

Tocqueville was a writer, and like all writers he made writing an art form. He was not an historian (nor is his book a history). It is a sort of 'travel book' and if he lived today, one could say that he might have won a commission to write for Fodors. The opening of his monumental book begins with a very, almost poetic description of the physical geography of North America:

"This continent is divided, almost equally, into two vast regions, one of which is bounded on the north by the Arctic Pole, and by the two great oceans on the east and west. It stretches towards the south, forming a triangle whose irregular sides meet at length below the great lakes of Canada. The second region begins where the other terminates, and includes all the remainder of the continent. The one slopes gently towards the Pole, the other towards the Equator." (Tocqueville, 18).

Physical Geography of the North American continent.

Of these two regions, Tocqueville tells us that the second region (the modern-day United States) is "better suited for the habitation of man." In these regions there are two chains of mountains; one on the western side (The Rockies) and one on the eastern side (the Appalachian, or Alleghanies). Between these two mountains is a great space which is 1,341,649 sq. miles*. It is a single valley, which has running through it a great river that the French called the St. Louis, and that the natives called the "father of waters", or the Mississippi River. The source of this river is the first region that Tocqueville described. Of the Mississippi River Valley Tocqueville writes that, "the valley of the Mississippi is, upon the whole, the most magnificent dwelling-place prepared by God for man's abode; and yet it may be said that at present it is but a mighty desert." 

At this time, the Mississippi River valley, west of the Appalachians was the "frontier" of early America. It had been explored by Lewis and Clark, but settlements of Americans was sparse there. The main bed of all of early America's energies was situated east of the Appalachians in a rugged, and not suitable for farming region, the northeast or Atlantic coast. Most of the early nation's agriculture was in the southern states. The industry, and indeed the capital of this new country was in the north. Of course, this stark difference between north and south would come into play later on in America's history, but that's another story. While most of America's industry was in the east along the coasts, Tocqueville observed that the real "true elements" of the American people were in the backwoods (on the frontier), and it was here with them that the future control of this continent lay.

Native Americans with their "reddish-brown"
skin bore witness to their common origins.
We now know that they originated in Asia.

But, while Americans (of European descent) had not largely settled west of the mountains yet, there were peoples there. These were the same people who had greeted the Europeans when they first landed on the shores of this "new world"; new to the Europeans, but not new to the natives, or "savages" as Tocqueville calls them. Now, to the modern reader, the use of that word may seem derogatory, but we must be careful not to place modern values on Tocqueville. This was common language for the time. Also, Tocqueville does not necessarily put them down. He describes these peoples as; "mild and hospitable when at peace, though merciless in war beyond any known degree of human ferocity, the Indian would expose himself to die of hunger in order to succor the stranger who asked admittance by night at the door of his hut; yet he could tear in pieces with his hands the still quivering limbs of his prisoners."

This map shows the varying native tribes of
North America.

He attributed this demeanor to their societal culture; which unlike the societies of Europe, showed no aristocratic elements. In these 'savage societies', all were free and equal. There were no real class divides. Toqueville writes of the Indians that they could, "live without wants, suffer without complaint, and pour out his death-song at the stake." They believed like all humans in a heaven, supreme deities  Their intellectualism was simple. Why were the people poor more rude in advanced civilizations? Tocqueville writes that it is not simply because they are poor and ignorant, but stems from their constant interaction with rich and enlightened men. The sight of their hard lot and weaknesses contrasted with the happiness of their rich counterparts makes them fearful and angry. They feel as if they are inferior, and in turn fall into despair over the fact that they believe they can do nothing to regain their equality. They allow themselves to fall below the dignity of human nature.

Another interesting note that Tocqueville writes about is the origins of these natives. He observed how they possessed similar qualities to the peoples of Asia; like the Tartars and the Mongols. In fact, Tocqueville was on to something here. For modern history has shown us that the native people may have came to the Americas from Asia by use of a land bridge which once spanned the Bering Strait.

But, despite the existence of these peoples, Tocqueville still holds that the Mississippi Valley was like a "great desert". For while the Indians lived on these lands, they never possessed it as we think of possessing today. There was evidence of early great cultures, like the mound builders in Ohio, but they for reasons we are still seeking out collapsed. The Indians were largely hunters, moving place to place following the herds like the Buffalo. When the new Europeans came into the land, they had dreams of appropriating the land for human industry. They were not interested in living for the chase. So, the Indians with "their implacable prejudices, their uncontrolled vices and still more perhaps their savage virtues, consigned them to inevitable destruction." Yes, another interesting note is how Tocqueville foresaw the end of the American Indian. Of course, he witnessed its genesis during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. In short, Tocqueville writes that this continent "seemed prepared to be the abode of a great nation, yet unborn."

[Book Review] A Student's Guide to The Study of History By: John Lukacs

A Student's Guide to
The Study of History
By: John Lukacs
ISBN 882926-41-2
ISI Books

I love history! By now this is pretty apparent. Over the course of my life I have accumulated not just a load of history books on various topics, but also books on the study and methods of history as well. I was in my local used bookstore (which I also happen to work at) and I found this little just-under-fifty-pages book published by the intercollegiate studies institute (ISI) by the Hungarian-born American historian John Lukacs called A Student's Guide to the Study of History.

I tell you, I am glad I found this small, but very important work. This book can be easily read and understood in one sitting. It is no more than an introduction to the study of history for college majors as well as passionate history "buffs" or amateur historians like me.

"To study history", Lukacs tells us, "is to learn about oneself." And if we fail to understand the importance of the past, then we bind ourselves to the ignorance and prejudices of the present generation. John Lukacs in this book covers, briefly what the study of history has meant over the course of centuries of human development. He begins with the Ancient Greeks and the Roman Historians and moves through history telling us how the methods and approach to historical study has changed as we have. For example, the term "professional historian" is a fairly new term, which developed in the 19th century in Germany. Before this time, history was regarded as literature, or as an art. After this, history became a science. One of the great writers, though recent scholarship has made us think differently on certain issues with him, Edward Gibbon was with all due respect an "amateur". He was inspired to write his monumental Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by walking amid the ruins of the once-great "eternal city".

Modern society tells you that you have to go to college and obtain a degree in history and learn its methodology in order to write about it. But, as the Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt said, "there is no such thing as historical method". The only thing you need to know is how to read. Student's of history must know how to read all the material, primary and secondary on their chosen subject and exhausting all that research. A true historian is driven through a deep passion for their subject, not through a prescribed method or a degree. If you want to be a historian, you don't need a degree. You need to be able to read and express yourself clearly in writing.

Now of course, Lukacs is not saying don't go to college. He after all did write this for those particular history enthusiasts who are considering the idea. However, he emphasizes that there is no real distinction between a professional historian and an amateur one. To say you can't be a historian unless you have a Ph.D in history, is nearly as absurd as saying a poet needs to get a Ph.D in poetry to write poems.

The present is but a mere illusion, and no one can see the future. All we have is history. In short, we are all historians, the sense of the past is profoundly inherent in the functioning of our minds. Lukacs quotes the great Christian existentialist Soren Kierkergaard, "we live forward, but we can only think backward."  As Cicero wrote, "to be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to remain a child always." We cannot know anything about a people, culture, or nation, without knowing their history.

At the end of this book is a great, short chronicle of the historians of the past that gives brief biographies and snippets of the way in which they thought. Lukacs also includes an outline to follow for those looking to embark on a lifetime of learning, and suggests some modern thinkers that are sadly neglected today in most colleges. These thinkers are (to name a few); Robert Nisbet, Eric Voeglin, Wilhelm Ropke, and Ludwig Von Mises.

I really enjoyed this little book and glad I happened upon it. If you are interested  in history I recommend this book. You will not regret reading it.

[Book Review] Leisure: The Basis of Culture By: Josef Pieper

Leisure: The Basis of Culture
By:  Josef Pieper
ISBN: 9781890318352

"Leisure has had a bad press," writes British philosopher Roger Scruton in the introduction of this edition to this brilliant work by German philosopher Josef Pieper.  "For the Puritan it is the source of vice; for the egalitarian a sign of privilege. The Marxist regards leisure as the unjust surplus, enjoyed by the few at the expense of the many. Nobody in a democracy is at ease with leisure, and almost every person, however little use he may have for his time, will say that he works hard for a living - curious expression, when the real thing to work for is dying." (Roger Scruton; in his introduction to Leisure the basis of Culture by: Josef Pieper).

When most of us today think of leisure, we think of relaxing and doing nothing while lying on a beach in the Caribbean, but there is a stark difference between what is "travel and leisure" and what is authentic leisure.

Josef Pieper (1904-1997);
 a German Catholic philosopher in the Neo-Thomist tradition.
Among his notable works is The Four Cardinal Virtues, Faith Hope Love,
and Leisure: The Basis of Culture. His message to the world, to borrow from an  Eagles' song;
learn to be still.

In this beautifully written work of philosophy, Josef Pieper introduces the reader to an understanding that leisure is nothing less than an attitude of mind and a condition of the soul that fosters a capacity to perceive the reality of the world. It is a reflection that hearkens us to return back to the priority of civilization; the vita contemplativa (contemplative life). The book consists of two essays, the first which lends its name to the title distinguishes authentic leisure from mindless know-how, and how we've come to confuse the two. The second is a wonderful introduction for anyone who wants to learn how to live a truly Christian (and human) life of contemplation and to know what it is to engage in philosophical activity.

Pieper notes on how in today's world of "total work" we mistake leisure with laziness and idleness. Leisure is not the end of work, but the continuation of work of another variety. The Ancient Greeks, like Aristotle and the Medieval Europeans understood leisure, but we today in the world of Max Weber's Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, with its mantra of "work-for-work's sake" do not. The Greeks and our Medieval ancestors would have been confused by such a statement. They instead would have said, "we work to be at leisure" or we are not-at-leisure, to be at leisure. Note; in short he is not saying that we do not have enough leisure, but rather that we have lost its true meaning and how to use it.

In today's bourgeois world of "total labor", Marxism and capitalism have vanquished authentic leisure and reduced man to a brute. These two systems have turned his mind from contemplation to a preoccupation with materialism. Think about how many times you've heard someone at work say something like, "stay busy!" We are told that we have to continue to labor hard to get what we want. But, what is that we want? Stuff. Moreover, money. Think about the reasons most students go to college. They go to get skills needed to get a good-paying job so that they can make more money. That is not the reason you should go to college. There is more to this life than money. Money cannot buy happiness. You can be filthy rich, but be miserable. You should go to college to earn an education, not job training. But, this also stems from a major flaw in our philosophy on education, but that is another matter entirely.

Pieper reminds us that the work we do doesn't justify itself  and doesn't provide a ground in itself, but rather we should be called to something higher. He helps us remember that leisure should be joined with worship, for true culture equals true worship. When leisure is separated from worship, then it becomes laziness and the world becomes a slave society. Only if we abandon the idolatry of the machine, the worship of senseless know-how, and the infantile "cult of youth" and regain the art of silence and insight, and the ability to be at true leisure rather than chaotic amusements will we regain society. if we don't do this, the message Pieper paints is clear; "we will destroy our culture-and ourselves."

Obviously one may argue, that we have to work to obtain a living, to survive; put food on the table and a roof over one's head. Yes, we do have to support ourselves, but what we do should not define who we are. We are not plumbers, bankers, cooks, and laborers; we are human beings created in the image of God. We are not workers, but highly intelligent beings with the capacity to use reason. This is what distinguishes us from savage animals.

I cannot say enough about this wonderful important work. The message is simple; Western culture today is rotten to the core. If we don't reverse this, our souls are in jeopardy, and even more our civilization itself. Though Pieper is Catholic, his message speaks to more than just Catholics. His message is universal. Only someone who is silent is listening. Work was not what God intended for us. He told us to rest. So, be still and know that he is God.

This is no easy read, it is certainly philosophy, and like all books on the subject needs to be taken in doses and read, and read over again and again to digest what the author is saying, and each time you read it, you will get more out of it. I emphasize in closing that this is an important book for our modern times.