|
|
Post by timothylane on Dec 24, 2019 18:24:05 GMT -8
Many years ago, I read a short piece on some old Virginia planter who freed his slaves. I don't know if it was Coles. But his move to Illinois brings up some points. Slaves were banned from that whole area under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, but this didn't rule out the possibility of any of these states adopting slavery in the future. Originally Indiana and Illinois had northern borders at the southern tip of Lake Michigan, just barely reaching it. But there was a fear that they would become too southern-oriented and might even fill up with slave-holders, particularly in the Ohio River valley. That's one reason they both moved their borders up north, to the displeasure of the territories (later states) of Michigan and Wisconsin.
Ohio had started this, and even got involved in a very wordy "war" with Michigan over a bit of territory near Toledo. There were echoes of this a couple of centuries later over a little spit of land extending north of the state border from Ohio territory.
At some point during the Revolutionary War Adams came to resent Washington for some reason. He was involved in the Conway Cabal of early 1778. Fortunately, it failed.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 24, 2019 18:32:15 GMT -8
Well done Edward Coles. I had never heard of him. That is a mistake. This is obviously a guy whose story should be better known. Even a Thomas Jefferson site notes: What’s amazing is that Coles wasn’t just virtue signaling. At certainly some pain, he did indeed free his own slaves and walked the walk. John Adams, for his part, at least condemned it verbally if not (apparently) in action, although according to this article (which seems even-handed), Abigail was the real pillar of morality in that household concerning the subject. Still, disliking slavery and the realities of politics are two different things. I’m not giving Adams a pass for not taking a more proactive government stand against it. But virtue-signaling is never the same thing as walking the walk when it counts. Kudos to Coles who did just that. |
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Dec 24, 2019 18:57:19 GMT -8
Brad,
As you seem to have discovered many of the Great Courses are filled with repeats, vague assumptions and narrow views. However, a few of them really are university level but finding them is a chore.
I recommend the free lectures at Hillsdale College. The introductory courses on line are exactly the same as the on campus course. Hillsdale has been, and still is, my recommended university for any one seeking what we used to call a liberal arts education. It is the only university on my donation list year after year. One reason, Hillsdale accepts no money from the government, local, state or federal not even student loans. Thus, they are in a position to tell the dept. of education to screw off. A freshman entering Hillsdale must complete at least two semesters on the Constitution and American government in their first year.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 24, 2019 19:00:43 GMT -8
I have McCullough's biography on Adams, but don't recall how deeply he went into Adam's envy of Washington. I do not remember if I have other bios on Adams, but anyone who reads a good amount on the Revolutionary War and bios of Washington will be introduced to this nasty side of old John. It was so nasty that he and Jefferson would make snide remarks to each other about Washington in the letters they exchanged in their dotage.
As I recall, Adam's dislike of Washington probably came about due to the fact that he was a/the leading light in the Continental Congress and felt he should have received the glory showered on Washington. Apparently, Adams help persuade the Continental Congress to appoint Washington commander of the army. One of the main reasons for this was that he thought Washington plodding, easily controlled and not future threat. He was amazed and disgusted at how things actually turned out. This type of error is very common among intellectuals and the overly educated. They mistake their glibness for knowledge and their cleverness for wisdom.They see reticence as weakness and humility as a sign of mental dimness.
Such strutting peacocks are generally lacking in courage and judgment. When one of their kind, such as Napoleon or Trotsky, shows himself to be a competent military man they titter in admiration. Otherwise, they look down on the military and soldiers. I am not referring to Adams here, just a type.
Another thing which seemed to irritate both Adams and Jefferson was Washington's extreme rectitude. He lived and judged by his principles and didn't let personal emotions or relationships get in the way of what he saw as his duty and doing what was right and proper in all situations. Such a person can make most people uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Dec 24, 2019 19:50:19 GMT -8
One thing to point out with Washington is the speed in which he could turn on someone he liked or admired when the circumstances indicated it. He no doubt genuinely admired Charles Lee, but upbraided him in front of his own troops after his failure at Monmouth. He similarly supported Benedict Arnold until he was exposed as a traitor, and immediately turned on him
I think it may have been Glenn Beck who wondered what might have happened if Washington had married a woman like Peggy Shippen and Benedict Arnold had married a respectable matron like Martha Custis. But he realized that one difference between them was in fact reflected in their chosen wives. Those choices reflected their personalities, and the reputations they gained later on.
Napoleon actually was a professional soldier, an artillery officer who rose from being a company-grade officer due to his own abilities. He was educated at a military school for that purpose, not at a French equivalent of Harvard. Trotsky was another matter. Orwell treated him much better in Animal Farm (as Snowball) than he deserved.
Hillsdale's rejection of taxpayer money does indeed free them from a lot of Behemoth red tape and such. In fact, this is why they do it. Hillsdale was one of the first colleges to admit blacks in antebellum days (Oberlin started even earlier), and later chose not to keep track of the races of those they admitted. When the Behemoth demanded such statistics in the 1970s, they refused to change their practice, and thus found that they had to replace ALL government subsidies, direct or indirect. (In other words, students going to Hillsdale could not get Behemoth money they otherwise were qualified to receive.)
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 24, 2019 21:28:21 GMT -8
I think that is a distinction without a difference. Napoleon had a good education and graduated from the Ecole Militaire which was the royal military academy. It was founded for the education of bright young men of modest wealth. Napoleon's focus was artillery and he finished the two year course in one year. His education would have been one of the finest available at the time, particularly in math.
There is no denying that he is considered an intellectual and polymath. It is of course, regrettable that he slaughtered so many innocent people, but one doesn't make a revolution, or dynasty, without breaking some eggs. He is just the type of military man intellectuals like. They certainly don't like those old aristocratic types such as the Duke of Wellington or Prince Eugene of Savoy.
He had a volcanic temper, but almost always kept it under control. I believe understanding the violent nature of his emotions, he strove for self control beyond what might have otherwise been the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Dec 24, 2019 22:23:55 GMT -8
Of course, the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon, and Prince Eugene of Savoy was on Napoleon's list of great generals (oddly enough, the Duke of Marlborough wasn't). Turenne also made the list, along with Frederick the Great. Incidentally, Eugene initially offered his services to Louis XIV, who decided he was too small. He then went to Austria, and became one of the greatest generals in Austrian history (his top rival for the honor would be Radetzky).
For what it's worth, Kipling preferred Roberts to Wolesley.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 25, 2019 19:05:28 GMT -8
Agreed, Artler. I think this is something (like anything involving a streaming service) that you have to pick through. The $7.99/month option (which I’m demoing) lets you choose from 120+ titles. The $19.99/month option offers 400+ titles. At first glance, I think I could blow my way through the $7.99 option in three months. There's no all that much I’d want to view. I don’t want to learn French, for example. But if you go to the site and search through the 400+ offerings, there is a lot more that catches my eye.
But I have watched about 14 lectures in the geometry series. Don’t ask me why I find this interesting. It must be a defect of some kind. But to his credit, the lecturer is a very good one. There have been some fun practical tricks for using geometry.
I’m still sorting my way through The Black Death as well. Again, it helps to have a good presenter. And neither of these series have a lot of political correctness in them. The only instance in the geometry series was when he was talking about how some of this geometry intersects with mathematics and what use “she” might make of it. So the generic “he” is PC’d to “she.” Annoying, but that’s the only instance except for the entirely insipid “BCE and CE” instead of “BC” and “AD”. I have no qualms with using “July” or “August” even though they are named for Roman emperors. Nor even some mathematical terms likely invented by Jews but taken credit for by Muslims. (I happen to think that a great percentage of "Muslim" advances were entirely due to the work of Jews they had working for them.) And I’m sure there are plenty of good Jewish words in our culture, whether for dates, mathematical terms, or whatever. Hopefully no Jew would be silly enough to be offended by “BC” or “AD.”
Or maybe I’m being to insensitive on the subject. But I digress. I keep wondering to myself how I will make use of my extensive knowledge of the black death. If we ever get hit with a new strain of it that sweeps through the lands, I’ll be sure to post some do’s and dont’s that I’ve learned. Actually, I can hardly think of a bloomin’ practical thing you could do if something highly contagious was being spread. Don’t go outside. Don’t eat. Don’t breath. Don’t commune with rats. Etc.
I’ve seen a couple lectures through the years from Hillsdale. That’s indeed a good free source for some good stuff. And good on you. That is indeed one of the few plague-free institutions worth donating to.
Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 25, 2019 19:11:25 GMT -8
Maybe McCullough was being kind. But I don't recall reading anything quite like that in his biography or anything else that I've read.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 25, 2019 19:26:41 GMT -8
I think McCullough really likes the people he writes about. Recall his Truman biography, which I thought was hagiography, not biography.
Here is a sample of some of the things Adams wrote about Washington.
It is not difficult to find such remarks from Adams about Washington, who was worth 10/100/1000(?) Adams. Adams was a small man with an envious heart. He clearly had an inferiority complex when it came to Washington. I might also ad that he was a lawyer and that does not speak in his favor, to my mind. Dick the Butcher was right.
Here is another of Adam's generous thoughts which one can find in Wikipedia.
Adams never questioned Washington's courage or patriotism, but Washington did join Franklin and others as the object of Adams's ire or envy. "The History of our Revolution will be one continued lie," Adams declared. "... The essence of the whole will be that Dr. Franklin's electrical Rod smote the Earth and out sprung General Washington. That Franklin electrified him with his Rod – and henceforth these two conducted all the Policy, Negotiations, Legislatures and War.
That screams "Me, me, me. I am the man responsible for the success of the Revolution. Why don't you admire me as much as Washington and Franklin?"
I admit I am being little hard on Adams because he attacked the only hero I have or have ever had, George Washington. But again, I think I am only being just a little harder on him than he may deserve.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 25, 2019 19:38:41 GMT -8
It was a radical thing to break from not only a king, but the most powerful nation on earth. I know we’re supposed to be binary about this and go all “our side/their side” on it. But a war like this really forced people into making some terrible choices. The default is to stay loyal to the king and “suffer while evils are sufferable.”
You’ve got to offer some very compelling reasons to do otherwise. Obviously the Declaration of Independence was meant to offer just those reasons. Still, isn’t it the common view that 1/3 stayed loyal, 1/3 joined the revolution, and 1/3 remained non-committal? What would any of us have done in those circumstances?
Whatever faults John Adams had, he did an extraordinary thing when he defended the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. That might have been simply a good opportunity for a lawyer to make a name for himself. But it did set him up as a defender of order and high ideals, not mob rule. And when he moved in support of the revolution, his prestige mattered and he stiffened more than a few wobbly backbones. Guys who make tough decisions always ruffle the feathers of others. A good many of the politicians back then were probably the embodiment of Colin Powell. They are professional wafflers.
It was noted in the program that when Washington took Trenton, they treated the Hessians well — the same brutes who apparently had often executed their prisoners. Washington brought a rightness to the cause in his conduct.
Washington, Adams, and Jefferson all provided a moral and ideological framework for this revolution. Yes, Thomas Paine as well before he went cuckoo with the French Revolution. Cromwell, Napoleon, etc., were all just jerks and power-hungry sleazebags in comparison. Sure, Washington obviously wanted the job, but the program in question noted again and again that he was perceived as an extremely humble man. And we can see how some of the other generals held less regard for the Cause than they did their own personal glory. And, good god, that’s the exact same thing I read about reading civil war generals, on both sides. People will almost always be narrow-minded and stupid. Washington seemed to be the epitome of virtue and self-sacrifice.
Once having chose a side and then flipping, as Arnold did, brings him no honor. What is amazing, despite the desertions, is how many soldiers stayed with Washington despite the early setbacks — and, of course, on Manhattan they simply ran for their lives and did not stay with him at that moment. But Washington through force of his own character was able to keep a core group with him and grow that group. Watching the events unfold as presented in that program, there seems to be a discontinuity to the story. The entire revolution should have simply dissolved in the face of defeat and the huge British forces in New York.
But it didn’t. Why? God and Washington, and I’m not sure I have those two in the right order. There’s a good account of Valley Forge in the program. I wasn’t aware (or didn’t remember) that some of the other generals had sent Washington a note that basically said “Nope, can’t make it. The river’s too difficult to cross.” So he’s heading toward Trenton not only without a significant part of his force but probably something like 7 hours late. And as the video characterized the entire effort, it was a rolling of the dice, Washington himself was certain enough that he would be captured or killed that he wore his best dress uniform.
Wives can help make a man. But what made Washington is some mystical combination of good character, good luck, and Providence. He pushed ahead as best he could and made it happen. I think this video shows that it’s very difficult to understand what occurred because, from one point of view, it couldn’t make sense even if you wanted it to.
It was also interesting that they noted that Martha Washington spent a lot of time in camp with Washington. That shows you right there what she was made of and that they certainly had a strong marriage. Imagine wanting to be with your husband enough to endure what had to have been like an extended camping trip in the woods for weeks or months at a time.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Dec 25, 2019 20:16:20 GMT -8
The estimate of one-third for independence, one-third loyalist, and one-third neutral or undecided, was apparently a guesstimate by Adams. No one ever polled the whole population. Nor did the whole population ever vote, even for the legislators in their colonies. There were significant property requirements for voting everywhere. In addition, no doubt many loyal or neutral citizens supported the patriot cause over time. One has only to think of John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, who opposed independence throughout the voting in Congress. But when it passed, he left the Continental Congress rather than approve it -- and joined the colonial army (unlike most of the delegates who supported independence, who remained in Congress). How does he count? He also was part of the convention that wrote the Constitution, though I think he may have represented Delaware then.
John Adams's (successful) defense of the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre was one of the ethical high points of his career. It even got mentioned in my high school American history text. He did check with his hotheaded cousin Samuel for approval.
One article I read today on Trenton noted that the Marblehead fishermen crewed the boats Washington used to cross the Delaware. The separate columns south of Trenton didn't have the Marbleheaders, which may have been why they failed to cross the icy river. Fortunately, it didn't matter. Their main purpose may have been to keep the Hessians from fleeing south, which Colonel Rall didn't try to do anyway.
Many of the Hessian prisoners were held in a building in Carlisle that later became a small museum at Carlisle Barracks, which Elizabeth and I visited the day after our Gettysburg tour. We overnighted in Carlisle, visited the museum, then went to Harrisburg for a guided tour of the state capitol. After that we visited Hershey, then wandered through Amish country to the opposite side of Philadelphia. The next day we crossed over to New Jersey, taking another guided tour of the state capitol in Trenton, then visiting Monmouth, before crossing back over to Philadelphia.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 26, 2019 8:19:45 GMT -8
I love that quote. And it is obvious that such large events as the American Revolution will get steeped in myth. Whatever motivated Adams in such comments, he would have been interesting in the age of Twitter.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Dec 26, 2019 8:39:26 GMT -8
I wonder if Trump would prefer to be the reincarnation of John Adams or the reincarnation of Andrew Jackson. Jackson has the Trail of Tears to be set against him, but Adams has the Alien and Sedition Acts. (Hamilton opposed them, incidentally, which is actually a bit of a surprise.) Both had some unpleasant aspects to their personalities. Adams has to his credit the satisfactory conclusion of the XYZ Affair (when told that Pinckney had picked up some French, er, ladies for the two, Adams said that Pinckney must have kept them all for himself) and the Quasi-War that it led to. (In particular, Adams made peace when he knew it was politically undesirable despite being the right thing to do.) Jackson has to his credit being the only President ever to succeed in paying off the National Debt (in January, 1835).
Overall, Trump would probably prefer Jackson to Adams, but it's true that Adams was a great quipster and would have fit in well in the Twitter Age. I think Lincoln had similar talents, such as his response to being called two-faced ("If I had two faces, would I use this one?").
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 26, 2019 11:03:39 GMT -8
Regarding The Black Death, I give this woman credit for not being an academic snob. She was mentioning the historical novel, The Black Death by John Hatcher, as a good source of information for what it was really like back then. The novel is based upon the real-life experiences and records of Walsham. She also mentioned the series, Cadfael, as good way to get a background on the dynamic of old England. She also noted the book, Pillars of the Earth, as a good source of information. I’ve ready that one and it is indeed pretty good although I didn’t have much luck staying with his second novel. Lecture #10 deals with a look at the black death in Walsham, England. There are good records for this region and has been studied extensively. The village was comprised of two manors. And the lecturer summarizes how a manor worked and how it tried to cope with the deaths. Transferring property became difficult because there might be no living heirs. Or, if there was an heir, it was possible that he or she was only three years old which then made it necessary to find a guardian. In some cases, people informed that they were heir to property (or the right at least to work the property) declined, most likely because they didn’t want to come to a plague-ravaged village to claim it. In some cases property was refused because one had already inherited so much (the boon of surviving the plague) that it could become all too much to manage. At least one of the old manor houses might have been turned into “ Healthcare Homes:”  |
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Dec 26, 2019 11:13:43 GMT -8
Overall, Trump would probably prefer Jackson to Adams, but it's true that Adams was a great quipster and would have fit in well in the Twitter Age. Trump is, I think, Jackson by temperament and Adams by philosophy. I am not sure on any given day, which is going emerge. The in-your-face Yankee in Trump is most like Jackson but there is a subtlety in his style that is very much like Adams. Thus, he is unique in the lines of American presidents. He also has the belly laugh humor of Thedore Roosevelt. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 26, 2019 20:19:07 GMT -8
Note that I'm pulling this from the web and count count on the veracity, but this would have made a good Tweet in the Twitter age for Mr. Adams:
And…
And…
And…
And…
I'm not sure of the accuracy of all of those.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 26, 2019 20:26:31 GMT -8
I thought they were hippopotamus bone.  Note he is not smiling! |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Dec 26, 2019 20:29:41 GMT -8
The first quote turned up, slightly differently, in the musical 1776 (at the beginning, when Adams has been upstairs pondering events and gets called down). Whether they invented it, or Adams actually said it at some point, I don't know. Some of the others do sound a lot like him.
I would be a bit more skeptical about the cherry tree reference, since I don't know when Parson Weems came up with it and whether Adams even knew the story. Nor, as KFZ pointed out, did Washington have wooden teeth, though Adams may not have known that.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 27, 2019 8:46:40 GMT -8
I will bow to the superiority of George Washington. But here’s another good quote from Adams that could be titled, “Don’t Raise a Snowflake”:
|
|
Note he is not smiling!