Blog 4 History

Nincompoop Hollywood writer/director Oliver Stone told the Sunday Times of London (would link to it but you have to pay, a simple internet search finds commentary on this topic) — while promoting his documentary South of the Border about South American politics — that “Hitler was a Frankenstein but there was also a Dr Frankenstein. German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support. Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people.”

He spews on: “We can’t judge people as only ‘bad’ or ‘good,’…[Hitler] is the product of a series of actions. It’s cause and effect. People in America don’t know the connection between WWI and WWII.”

Stone proclaimed that the “Jewish domination of the media” is why Hitler gets the historical shaft….

My God, then again this guys loves Hugo Chavez and Castro.

The Grand Design: Strategy and the U.S. Civil War
Donald Stoker
(Hardback, 512 pages)

I’m going to go out on what should be a well occupied limb ready to break under the weight and say that Donald Stoker’s The Grand Design: Strategy and the U.S. Civil War will win award(s) next year. Stoker’s book is not just keenly researched, but he handles the war policies and strategies of the North and South in a fairly unique way.

From the publisher:

In The Grand Design , Donald Stoker provides a comprehensive and often surprising account of strategy as it evolved between Fort Sumter and Appomattox. Reminding us that strategy is different from tactics (battlefield deployments) and operations (campaigns conducted in pursuit of a strategy), Stoker examines how Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis identified their political goals and worked with their generals to craft the military means to achieve them–or how they often failed to do so. Stoker shows that Davis, despite a West Point education and experience as Secretary of War, failed as a strategist by losing control of the political side of the war. His invasion of Kentucky was a turning point that shifted the loyalties and vast resources of the border states to the Union. Lincoln, in contrast, evolved a clear strategic vision, but he failed for years to make his generals implement it. At the level of generalship, Stoker notes that Robert E. Lee correctly determined the Union’s center of gravity, but proved mistaken in his assessment of how to destroy it. Stoker also presents evidence that the Union could have won the war in 1862, had it followed the grand plan of the much-derided general, George B. McClellan

Books have dealt with how and why the North won and the South lost, tactics, and strategy, but no other book I have read brings it all together within the political and strategic grand policies(or lack thereof) of each.

Stoker brings the startling yet obvious realization quickly to light when he points out that for a period of time when the war started Lincoln and the North had no real strategy. What was the North’s political objective? How and why does it change and how did this inform military strategy, operations, and tactics? If the North could have developed a grand strategy quickly and placed the proper instruments of war into place they could have won sooner. The South on the other hand had a clear grand strategy, and if I read Stoker correctly, but they were uneven in employing it. What is also clear, though not original in this work, is the failure of Davis and the evolution and success of Lincoln as a “grand strategist.”

I could go on and on about this truly unique and excellent work. I highly recommend it. Bravo Mr. Stoker.

Kenneth C. Davis, A Nation Rising: Untold Tales of Flawed Founders, Fallen Heroes, and Forgotten Fighters from America’s Hidden History. HarperCollins, 2010. ISBN: 978-0-06-111820-3.

Mr. Davis attempted to cover the first 50 years of the 19th century by following the narratives of 6 events: Burr’s trial, Weatherford’s War, the Madison Mutiny, Dade’s promise, Morse’s code and Jesse’s journey. Mr. Davis sought to provide “a portal into the times” in which each event unfolded. These are what he calls “overlooked.”

Mr. Davis has not written a history book in as much as he has a political op-ed piece. Davis starts off with President Obama’s election and throughout the book brings up politics of today and compares it with the past; and he takes events from the past and compares them with today. For example, Davis compared several events from American history with the terrorists attacks of 9/11. Here are those examples: William Weatherford’s “massacre” (Mr. Davis wording) at Fort Mims when Creek Indians stormed the fort and killed over 500 (265 armed militia) but spared the blacks so they could enslave them. Mr. Davis also compares a Seminole Indian attack in Florida against American soldiers as another 9/11 like event. I’m sorry, but how attacks by soldiers (warriors) against soldiers (and yes some settlers who understood the danger) is comparable to a radical Islamic terrorist attack against unarmed civilians whose only crime was going to work compares is beyond me!?

In his “Introduction,” Mr. Davis correctly points out that back in 1776 there were “many founders” who would have “been perfectly at home owning Barack Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two little girls and perhaps selling all or some…” Historically inaccurate? No, the straw man here is easily disposed. Well done Mr. Davis! Of course, Davis fails to point out that some founders did not own slaves: John Adams, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Paine. But the point here is Davis’s agenda, it’s “gotcha” history with his own political twist. As if the man is telling us anything new.

Now he does actually get into some interesting stuff with his 6 narratives only his constant injection of politics into his narrative ruined it; at least for me.

Davis then reveals the shocker that Washington (who freed his slaves upon his death) and Jefferson (who could not as he technically no longer owned them upon his death due to massive debts) would surely have been two of those who would have had no problem with the above scenario and would have even taken part. I don’t know how often Washington sold his slaves or if he ever broke up families (and the same goes for Jefferson), but Mr. Davis better know. Does Mr. Davis know that by the time the Revolution and Constitutional Convention are completed and the nation holds its first elections, the fact that anyone was voting on such a massive scale was unprecedented in world history. Remember, most of the world was “ruled” or lived in anarchy.

Mr. Davis then wraps it up by pointing out the hypocrisy of the founding when Obama himself, had he lived back in the day, would have only been “three-fifths of a man” when the counting of population took place for representation in Congress. Never mind that all the racists Southerners wanted all blacks to be counted as an entire human being as it would have benefited them.

Another and final example I will provide, every time (maybe I missed one or two when he didn’t) when Davis compares an event that was bad within something from modern history he does so with only Republicans. In his discussion on “presidential vendettas” he brings up Nixon and Bush, never mind FDR who had political opponents jailed.

The book is nothing more than a political expression of Mr. Davis and a good example of “presentisim” and activism that has no place in historical scholarship.

If you want a good book on this time period, take a look at David Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848.

A Savage Conflict: The Decisive Role of Guerrillas in the American Civil War, By Daniel E. Sutherland

From the News-wire:

Newswise — Daniel E. Sutherland, professor of history at the University of Arkansas, has been awarded the Distinguished Book Prize by the Society of Military Historians for his work A Savage Conflict: The Decisive Role of Guerrillas in the American Civil War.

Sutherland’s A Savage Conflict is the first book to treat guerrilla warfare as critical to understanding the course and outcome of the Civil War. In what has been called “a meticulously researched account,” Sutherland argues that irregular warfare took a large toll on the Confederate war effort by weakening support for state and national governments and diminishing the trust citizens had in their officials to protect them.

Sutherland is the author or editor of 13 books, and five of his books have been selected by the History Book Club. His next book, Civil War Guerrillas, will appear in 2012.

Awarded since 1987, the Distinguished Book Prize recognizes the best book-length publications in English on military history, whether monograph, bibliography, guide or other project.

Let me be clear, Daniel E. Sutherland’s book A Savage Conflict is incredibly researched, informative, and well written. It deserves praise. However, the title also includes the wordage: “The Decisive Role of Guerrillas in the American Civil War.” And when I read the book there was not nearly enough within it to support any claim of “decisive” role played by irregular warfare during the Civil War. I would instead point the reader to Robert R. Mackey’s book The Uncivil War: Irregular Warfare in the Upper South, 1861-1865 that is far more convincing and contains a far better argument establishing that irregular warfare did not play a decisive role and in fact guerrilla warfare was an utter failure for the South.

For example, Sutherland ends the book stating that “guerrilla conflict… made the war a far bloodier affair than the armies alone could have done. They prolonged the war by months at least…” (p. 277).

Hardly a claim for “decisive” and symptomatic of the entire book. Seems like a flaw that was worth considering before winning awards.

George Washington was a brewer, well, a distiller. Not just that, he was the largest distiller of his time producing more than 10k gallons of whiskey in 1799 alone.

As early as 1789 Washington wanted Americans drinking only home grown spirits, so he presented his “buy American” policy indicating he will only drink porter made in America.

From the news article, it appears that ole’ Washington’s rye whiskey recipe is back in business!

“Mount Vernon recreates Washington’s rye whiskey recipe for public consumption.”

Just 213 years after George Washington started distilling his rye whiskey, it has once again hit the market. A nearly 15-year process of research and archeology allowed historians at Mount Vernon to recreate the first president’s whiskey recipe.

The distillery, just three miles from Mount Vernon outside of Alexandria, Va. opened for business after the Virginia General Assembly approved sales in small amounts, selling out all 471 bottles at $85 dollars a pop.

To read more…

I have been extremely busy and have had to neglect the blog. I have three graduate classes ending in a week and three massive papers. Here is something I will be writing on soon and thought I would share it ahead of time. My Social Justice research will led back to the Progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Here is one of many “Progressive” publications, this one from Wisconsin. Take a look and we’ll discuss more in the future.

I found this article today in the Chicago Tribune written a week or so ago by Cory Franklin who was motivated to write a piece on teachers when he received word that one of his favorite history teachers had passed away. The opinion piece at first led me in a completely incorrect direction. Mr. Franklin starts off by discussing the old teacher’s methodology that was dry and pragmatic approach that I vaguely remember in my history classes years ago. But Franklin then starts noting those “hidden” strengths of a good teacher, “hidden passion for teaching history,” he says.

After another paragraph or two of evaluation Franklin noted that it was during the Vietnam War when he was in this teachers classroom: “This all occurred during the height of the Vietnam War and despite the teach-ins, sit-ins and anti-war rallies just outside his room, he never acknowledged them.” Apparently, this teacher was not one of the “cool” teachers who openly discussed the events going on around them and the political viewpoints.

Years later Cory Franklin, then a newspaper writer as he is now, was contact by this teacher after a column he had written. They had a good conversation and stayed in touch from that time.

Franklin then gets to the real heart of what makes a good teacher:

I asked about the Vietnam War, why he studiously avoided mentioning it in class. I told him many students were disappointed he didn’t express his opinions, or more accurately, the opinions we wanted him to have. He was, in fact, quite erudite about Vietnam. But he felt it wasn’t his job to insert his political views into a class teaching a coherent story of American history, not contemporary events. It would inflame passions unnecessarily and could only get in the way of what students should be learning. Anyway, who could say at that point how history would judge those contemporary events? Better to let the whole thing gain perspective. Those interested would learn the facts and lessons in due time.

Well said as I have had to debate this before.

Since 2002 Franklin Delano Roosevelt has ranked number one in New York’s Siena College Research Institute Survey of U.S. Presidents, which ranks the best Commander-in-Chiefs of all time in a number of different categories, and has done so five times.

I’ll let the list speak for itself:

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
2. Theodore Roosevelt
3. Abraham Lincoln
4. George Washington
5. Thomas Jefferson
6. James Madison
7. James Monroe
8. Woodrow Wilson
9. Harry Truman
10. Dwight D. Eisenhower
11. John F. Kennedy
12. James K. Polk
13. William Clinton
14. Andrew Jackson
15. Barack Obama
16. Lyndon B. Johnson
17. John Adams
18. Ronald Reagan
19. John Quincy Adams
20. Grover Cleveland
21. William McKinley
22. George H. W. Bush
23. Martin Van Buren
24. William Howard Taft
25. Chester Arthur
26. Ulysses S. Grant
27. James Garfield
28. Gerald Ford
29. Calvin Coolidge
30. Richard Nixon
31. Rutherford B. Hayes
32. James Carter
33. Zachary Taylor
34. Benjamin Harrison
35. William Henry Harrison
36. Herbert Hoover
37. John Tyler
38. Millard Fillmore
39. George W. Bush
40. Franklin Pierce
41. Warren G. Harding
42. James Buchanan
43. Andrew Johnson

[Source]

Please take a moment this weekend to think about (or talk with your children who are old enough to understand) what this country means and how it was established by the Founders as an Empire of Liberty; as they understood it. The Freedoms that they fought for established a Republican tradition that stands today, though under some serious stress. Honor our Founders and the heritage and traditions of Freedom.

So as you Bar-B-Que or go to the lake, take a moment and honor our Greatest Generation, the Founders!

After the American Revolution and the finalization of the American Constitution there was to be an established code of naturalization. AS per the Constitution, Congress had to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and did so on April 14, 1802 by an Act of Congress.

This Act contained certain provisions in favor of aliens residing in the United States prior to the act that allowed for citizenship. The act stipulated that any alien arriving in the United States after the latter period had to comply with the following before he could be admitted to the rights of citizenship:—

1. He shall declare on oath or affirmation, in some competent court, at least three years before his admission, that it was, bonafide, his intention to renounce for ever all allegiance to any sovereign or state of which he was a subject.

2. He shall swear or affirm that he will support the Constitution of the United States.

3. He shall satisfy the court that he has resided within the United States at least five years, and within the State or Territory where such court is held at least one year, before he can be admitted. It must further appear to the satisfaction of the court that he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

4. He shall renounce every title of nobility held by him. Subsequent laws modified this act in the following important particulars :—

A residence in the United States for the continued term of five years, without being at any time without the territory of the same, was required of aliens by an act approved March 3, 1813. This provision, however, was repealed by the act of June 26,1848.

There is a long history of immigration and immigration legislation. Our immigration policies have unfortunately had very negative consequences, for example, the “Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882″ barred Chinese from entering the U.S. and “The Gentlemen’s Agreement” (1907) to regulate Japanese immigration into the country. In 1892 the immigrant processing center Ellis Island opened for Europeans primarily and helped to process about 12 million immigrants over the next 30 years. Each new immigrant had to pass a physical and pay a “head tax.”

The first major step to curb immigration dealt with what was seen as persons who arrived and were physically and mentally incapable of taking care of themselves. The Immigration Act of 1917 increased the entry tax to eight dollars. Then in 1924 The Johnson-Reed Act limited annual European immigration to 2 percent of the population of Europeans in the United States in 1890. After the outbreak of war in 1940, The Alien Registration Act passed and required the registration and fingerprinting of all aliens in the United States over the age of 14.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran Walter Immigration Act) of 1952 affirmed the national-origins quota system of 1924 and limited total annual immigration to one-sixth of one percent of the population of the continental United States in 1920. It also included an exemption for spouses and children of U.S. citizens born in the Western Hemisphere from being a part of the quota.

Other reforms:

1965 – Immigration and Nationality Act repeals the national origins quota system and gives priority to family reunification.

1986 – The Immigration Reform and Control Act gives amnesty to approximately three million undocumented residents and provides punishments for employers who hire undocumented workers.

1990 – The Immigration Act of 1990 increases the number of immigrants allowed into the United States each year to 700,000.

1996 – The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act strengthens border enforcement and makes it more difficult to gain asylum. The law establishes income requirements for sponsors of legal immigrants.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, Congress makes citizenship a condition of eligibility for public benefits for most immigrants.

1998 – The American Competitiveness and Work force Improvement Act increases the number of skilled temporary foreign workers U.S. employers are allowed to bring into the country.

The history of this country has always been complex in terms of it relationship to immigrants and natives. For a nation of immigrants we often did not tolerate newly arriving ones. We also forcibly immigrated hundreds of thousands of Blacks.

So I will avoid a blanket statement that attempts to cover the current issue of immigration. What I will say is no sane person can possibly be against immigration. We are a country of constant immigration. What the real issue centers on is Naturalization and the legal process that was good enough for my family (on my father’s side, my mother’s side goes back to the Mayflower) when it arrived penniless before WW2, and is good enough now for newly arriving immigrants.

For some fun, take a basic United States Citizenship quiz.