tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post117287702014143212..comments2023-09-01T09:38:54.262-04:00Comments on Dumb Looks Still Free: Old Europe and the EconomistA Jacksonianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-1172931248307399392007-03-03T09:14:00.000-05:002007-03-03T09:14:00.000-05:00Harrison - My thanks! And if you have a code or a...Harrison - My thanks! And if you have a code or any such that blogger coughed up on trying to comment, let me know... or send it in to the blogger folks. I have had some problems there, myself, and sent a notice to them but no response... probably time to re-drop them a line.<BR/><BR/>For a relatively good analysis and overview of the American Revolution, the <A HREF="http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=200893" REL="nofollow">History Channel</A> put on a stunning presentation, which they have captured in timeline version in basic text, without the added analysis seen in the series. Although not presented in tandem with that are the <A HREF="http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=76779" REL="nofollow">Founding Fathers and Founding Brothers</A>, which looks at the familial problems and other concerns that happened within families. Although these are the more well known founders, by and large, they are reflective of the greater colonial whole in which families were pulled at cross purposes. While these are relatively glossy overviews, when a series devotes so much air time to the topic the breadth of coverage was beyond my knowledgebase at the start of it and all the interesting bits and pieces of local history along the Colonies gave a better local flavor to the happenings than I have gotten from a single work, previously. And because it does cut across historical sources, including much in the way of source material and letters, the scattering of works looking at those individual pieces are fit into the whole of the Revolution. That said some books of interest are:<BR/><BR/>Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin by Benjamin Franklin - and even he left some parts of his life out, but words to understand and know America by<BR/>The Saratoga Campaign by David Ellis - which is so far back in my reading history that it is truly a blur, but impressed me as pre-teen<BR/>Warrier on Two Continents - Thaddeus Kosciuszko by David J. Abodaher - mostly due to local history in Buffalo and its Polish population<BR/>Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph J. Ellis<BR/>Pulaski Legion in the American Revolution by Francis Casimir Kajencki - again due to local history needs<BR/>The Revolution in America, 1754-1788: Documents and Commentaries by J.R. Pole editor<BR/>The American Revolution, A General History, 1763-1790 by E. James Fugeson<BR/><BR/>In truth most of my reading done as a boy and teen is what this amounts to... I did do research on various individual topics as they came up in other works, particularly alt-history. To understand alt-history works one must understand the context of the alternative presented and that requires actually placing the real-life context in its place. Thus an early short story I read on how Benedict Arnold came to be on the one dollar bill in an alt-history story by H. Beam Piper led to a reading on Arnold and his background... and even *that* was surpassed by what the History Channel presented so as to know the man and his outlook. That cross-synthesis of more than one source leads to a complex understanding from viewpoints that allow some of the actual events to come to the forefront. A historical novel on Citizen Tom Paine by Howard Fast helps to give insight to the man, for all the scantiness of the non-important works he left behind... more conjecture in some areas, but for some things where the historical record is not there, one needs to try and fit some context to a person in their place. That may do ill justice in some cases, but we want to know *people* not the bare record of history.<BR/><BR/>That goes nearly double for me in the US Civil War and all the recent work just on television by Burns at PBS and the History Channel give divergent views and convergent ones due to the stresses being placed by the outlook of the author(s) and producers. That is true of all the narratives from the Civil War, too. The complex compendium of problems with the Constitution vice slavery and State's Rights along with the societies within the States led to the Civil War. When one looks at just the historical events, like at the <A HREF="http://www.civilwar.com/index.php?option=com_officialrecord" REL="nofollow">Civil War</A> site, the length and breadth of actions and activities during the war are given an overview. As the folks at <A HREF="http://ehistory.osu.edu/uscw/index.cfm" REL="nofollow">eHistory</A> point out: "The American Civil War is one of the most researched conflicts in modern history, yet many people still desire more knowledge about it." And again I would not rely on modern sources only as the view of the purely modern, post-WWII era is not the main nor driving one in understanding US history and has plentiful defects. The historical documents, as gathered by <A HREF="http://www.historycentral.com/documents/Divided.html" REL="nofollow">History Central</A> make for compelling reading in addition to later historical analysis.<BR/><BR/>Reading something like Keep The Last Bullet For Yourself: The True Story Of Custer's Last Stand by Thomas Marquis led me backwards from that event through the reconstruction into the Civil War and to understanding the man of George Custer. That research, as such, was ongoing and not driving to me, but I picked up pieces here and there from historical timelines and timetables to short readings on battles... not the stuff of scholarly research, just personal interest. And I really do eschew reading 'The People's History of...' anything. While I do see peoples making history, I only see individuals writing it and one may write about a people but not put forth their history for them. That is a very personal bias, but it is aimed at weeding out socialist, communist and transnational views which I consider to be ill-based and without understanding that only comes to convergent agreement by happenstance.<BR/><BR/>Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave by Frederick Douglass - gives the power of the injustice of slavery and why it was a driving force and showed the outcome of what had been left unresolved from 1776.<BR/>Gray Fox: Robert E. Lee and the Civil War by Davis Burke - A man torn between two peoples and one Nation<BR/>Strategy in the Civil War by Barron Deaderick<BR/>Grant and Lee: A Study in Personality and Leadership by JFC Fuller<BR/>The Gettysburg Campaign by Edwin Coddington<BR/>The Centennial History of the Civil War by Bruce Catton<BR/>The Civil War: A Narrative by Shelby Foote<BR/>The Civil War by Ken Burns<BR/>The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 by David M. Potter<BR/>Two Roads To Sumter by Bruce and William Catton<BR/>Victory Rode the Rails by George Edgar Turner<BR/>Romanticism and Nationalism in the Old South by Rollin G. Osterweis<BR/>Personal Memoirs of US Grant by Ulysses S. Grant<BR/>Destruction and Reconstruction by Richard Taylor<BR/><BR/>The entire industrial dichotomy of North and South of that era is one of strange confluences and contrasts on how the North centralized in cities for industrial production and the South continuing on the distributed production and agricultural outlook. And yet the railroads would interweave both and spread change. That basic factor is one that has been addressed, but underplayed by many as the sheer capability of such industrial production was a threat to the South. Those same southern plantations and outlook that were the major part of the US economy during and after the Revolution were being supplanted by industrialization. The North, because of that and having better means to accumulate and distribute such things as food and clothing, found itself at a long-term advantage to the South just on a man-per-man basis in wartime. The money was not flowing South as it could only expand outwards with agrarian culture... the money did flow North as concentration of capital and leveraging industry allowed for a greater economic output per person. While the socialists push that as a main factor, and have during most of the 20th century, I see it as a contributing factor and a leading indicator to success. That said success was not assured due to the capability or lack of same, that the populations had to their outlooks on society and the Constitution. A very few flaws in the Constitution in being unable to carry out the outlook of the Declaration and then attempting to paper them over with legislation made the entire thing worse, not better, and it also put off the day until one side could actually *win* the conflict... I am not convinced that had the Civil War taken place a decade earlier that there would not be two Nations coming out. Being unable to find a way through the civil process left the martial as the recourse.<BR/><BR/>Again, I am not well versed and deeply knowledgeable about the Civil War or the Revolutionary War as anyone with a deep interest in it will have. I have probably read more on the brief overviews and timelines and interconnections via things like The Timetables of History or The Anchor Books of World History than I do of deep scholarly works. The recurring themes of human organizations and outlooks come up in different casts and flavors time and again and knowing those helps to put a recast of similar outlooks into a different era. I have probably scrounged up about as much on Count Belisarius as I have on George Washington, which is to say not as much as any scholar. And as regional and purely local driven history was something put forward at the schools I attended as a youngster, I end up knowing a bit more about Pulaski than about Gates, which still isn't a hell of a lot, all things considered as I retain little about each and it required prodding by the History Channel to dredge up old memories.<BR/><BR/>As with so much else I try to define the things that drive events, what they are and delineate them and understand how they function in part and as part of a whole. When historical views differ I try my best to understand the stance of the historian involved and see if the views given can be de-skewed and brought into concordance. If not then it is left as different outlooks on that thing and reconciliation is sought elsewhere in the structure. That does not always work, but if it gives a good enough flow of events and understanding of the factors involved, then I stick to it until something better comes along. All histories from the personal to the oblique centuries onward can offer perspective which helps to bring history into focus and our own biases will put our own view into doubt, also, which is always to be remembered. We are continually amazed that multiple driving forces of society, economy, industry, military capability, personal outlooks and religious views can suddenly crystallize to transform events... and yet that happens often enough that it is the norm of humanity and the day to day normality between them the lull of events. Now as industry and technology compress advances, the entire formulation is sped up and we are witness to historical change before our eyes. And yet, reading accounts of the great age of industrialization, the people then saw the exact same thing.<BR/><BR/>Well, I digress! As with all things of interest in history, I always recommend starting at the top and digging into whatever catches your eye. Read and expand on other things that are of interest... it may get a hodge-podge, but your mind is trying to fit it together and doing the interesting stuff will lead to the areas that connect to you, as a person. If it continues as an interest, reading outwards to other things will gain added connections specific to you... and when those come into disagreement with the views of another, you will have the basis for understanding what a concordance should look like and where your own views are at odds. Learning never stops.A Jacksonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-1172909083213571692007-03-03T03:04:00.000-05:002007-03-03T03:04:00.000-05:00a jacksonian, there seems to be some problem with ...<B>a jacksonian</B>, there seems to be some problem with publishing comments on The Jacksonian Party. Seems like the verification number doesn't appear.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, here's what I have to say about The Modern Jacksonian - Chapter 4 - The Perfection of Imperfection:<BR/><BR/>Enthralling post! I thank you for enlightening me with this brief history lesson. Do you recommend any books on the particular topic of the Revolution and the Civil War?<BR/><BR/>Those darn Transnational Progressivists have reaped the benefits and milked all that is worth of the Nation-State: that entity that enabled them to pursue their self-interests, ambitions and goals, allowed them to exercise their rationality and intellect by safeguarding their properties (a little Lockean perspective here), provided them a sanctuary - though never perfect - has been more optimal than any other form of social and national structure ever existed. <BR/><BR/>Recognising the impossibility of realising perfection should not discourage the People of fine-tuning and drastically altering the Government if it is required of them. The People only owe it to themselves - the onus is on them to exact that change that they deem fit.<BR/><BR/>Again, I apologise for posting something O/T here. Hopefully, the server problem (or something like that) will be fixed.Harrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17688001023588334672noreply@blogger.com