Tag Archives: Louisiana Purchase

RUSSIA, BRITAIN AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

This 1783 portrait shows the American delegation to the Paris peace talks. The British refused to pose with the Americans. Animosity was still running high more than a year after the war had ended.

With three young grandchildren in the house, including a baby that recently turned one year old, I’ve taken to watching silent movies on Turner Classic Movies (TCM).   There’s no dialog to hear, so surrounding noise isn’t a problem.

I started by watching the 1925 version of “Ben Hur,” which many consider the best of the three versions.  It certainly has the best chariot scene, made at a time when animal rights were not taken into consideration.  (Not that I advocate hurting animals – it was just so REAL!)

Recently, I watched “Love” with Greta Garbo and John Gilbert, made the following year.   The two actors were more famous than Jennifer Lawrence and Leonardo DiCaprio are today.

The movie was an enactment of Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina.”   The title was changed thanks to the tabloids.  The gossip papers had revealed that, while making the film, Gilbert and Gabo had started their own relationship.  This enabled the movie’s producers to put the following on marquees across America:   “Garbo and Gilbert in Love.” The movie was a sensation, a bigger hit than anything Hollywood turns out nowadays.

It wasn’t only the title that was changed.   Producers chose to make the movie with two alternative endings.  They referred to one as the “Russian ending,” with Anna, as in the classic, killing herself in front of a train after an adulterous affair that led to her losing her son.   Another ending was made for Americans, with Anna’s husband dying, thereby leaving her free to marry her lover, Vronsky, and keep her son.  It was felt that American audiences couldn’t handle Anna’s death.   The “American” version missed the whole point of the novel.

Interestingly, the Russian ending was shown in New York and on the West coast.   It was only Mid-western sensibilities that they were concerned about.

If Hollywood can’t even get a novel right, why would we expect them to be accurate when it comes to non-fiction?

Another Russian “story” caused a problem for Hollywood a few years later, by which time sound had replaced the old silent movies. This movie dealt with “Rasputin and the Empress” (1932).   It’s depiction of Prince Felix Yousoupov, the principal murderer of Rasputin, was so inaccurate it led to a major lawsuit; since then movies carry the words “all characters in this film are fictional,” or similar, to protect themselves from expensive lawsuits.   Now, no attempt is made at accuracy.

I’ve yet to see a Hollywood movie depict the American Revolution with any degree of accuracy.   In Hollywood, everything has to be black and white.  Real life is rarely like that.   The Revolution was not Americans against the king; the country was equally divided — one third rebelled against the crown, one third were loyal and the other third couldn’t spell “crown.”   On the eve of Yorktown, 40% were loyalists, with support for the Patriots down to 30%.

Rather than the claim that the king was acting selfishly, it can be argued that the leaders of the Patriots were.   They were heavily in debt to British banks, following a bad crop in 1773 – one way to get out from under the debt was to ditch the Crown.   It’s not surprising that wealthy indebted landowners led the revolution – the only revolution in history where those rebelling were richer than those they rebelled against!   This issue was finally resolved after the war when the belligerents got together in Paris.

I was thinking about this over the Fourth of July, when I read a review in The Economist by their American correspondent.   He reviewed a book titled:   “Scars of Independence: America’s violent birth,” by Holger Hoock of the University of Pittsburgh.    Mr. Hoock “. . . concluded that selective amnesia took hold soon after the war, as victors told their version of history, and the British displayed their genius for forgetting defeats.  In the republic’s earliest decades, stone monuments charging the British with “cold-blooded cruelty” rose on battle sites from Lexington, Massachusetts to Paoli, Pennsylvania.   Meanwhile orators told Americans that their revolt had been unusually civilized:  one public meeting in 1813 declared the revolution “untarnished with a single blood-speck of inhumanity.”  (The American Revolution Revisited – a Nation Divided, Even at Birth)

I have an extensive library of books on the Revolution, all of which were written by Americans.  The following quote from The Economist is an accurate observation:

“Browse through school history books, with names like “Liberty or Death!” and the struggle to throw off British rule is sanctified as a victory of American patriot-farmers and artisans against battle-hardened British redcoats and foreign mercenaries, defending ideals crafted by orators in periwigs.  Yet go back to contemporary sources, and they called it what it also was:  a brutal civil war.” (Economist review.)

6% of America’s population died in the Revolutionary War, as against 2% in the War Between the States eight decades later.  (By 1861 the population was much higher, but the percentage gives an idea of the relative suffering of the people.)

Note the following:  “At the war’s end, about one in 40 Americans went into permanent exile, the equivalent of some 8m people today.” (ibid.)

The Revolutionary War was a civil war.   Most battles took place without the presence of British soldiers – brother fought brother, to death, with little mercy shown.   Ironically, if the Revolutionary War had not taken place, the “Civil War” would never have happened – the imperial parliament in London abolished the slave trade in 1808 and slavery itself 25 years later.   No battles were fought over the issue.   Additionally, states’ rights would never have been a factor or cause for conflict.   Canada was spared both civil wars.

So, what did Americans gain?

FACTS TELL A DIFFERENT STORY

Consider the following gleaned from a variety of books on the subject:

>>>American historian Gordon Wood, considered the foremost expert on the Revolution, wrote in his book: “The Radicalization of the American Revolution,” that England in the eighteenth century was the freest country in the world and that the colonists were even freer.  The king was the guarantor of freedom – never again could a commoner like Oliver Cromwell take power and become a dictator. Celebrations for King George III’s coronation in 1762 were greater in the colonies than in England.   So, what went wrong and why, then, did some Americans want more freedom?

>>>The French and Indian Wars were fought by Britain and the colonists to defend the latter against a French Catholic take-over. George Washington, serving “King and Country”, fired the first shots. The seven-year war left the British government with serious debts, which they tried to recoup by taxing the colonies.   Americans did not want to pay for the war.   Over two centuries later, Americans still do not like to pay for wars.

>>>Contrary to what is often thought today, all thirteen original colonies had a democratic form of government.   All property-owning males could vote, with a 90% turnout at elections.   After independence, there was no immediate widening of the franchise.   In 1789, when the first election was held, only 6% of the population could vote.   Both the United States and the United Kingdom extended the franchise during the nineteenth century and both gave women the vote after World War One.   America lagged behind England in voting rights, not catching up until the Voting Rights Act of 1964.

>>>The Right to Vote and the Right to Bear Arms were in force before 1776.   Indeed, the revolution would not have been possible without these rights.

>>>It has often been pointed out that the leaders of the Revolution were richer than the people they rebelled against.

>>>In 1772, the monumental Somerset Decision sent shock-waves through the American colonies.  A slave  had taken his owner to court.  The court ruled that nobody in the British Isles could be owned by somebody else.  If extended to the colonies, this would have ruined prosperous farmers who needed free labor.

Wikipedia has this to say on the subject:   “Somerset v Stewart 98 ER 499 is a famous judgment of the English Court of King’s Bench in 1772, which held that chattel slavery was unsupported by the common law in England and Wales.”

>>>Rather than the claim that the king was acting selfishly, it can be argued that the leaders of the Patriots were.  They were heavily in debt to British banks, following a bad crop in 1773.

>>> Paul Revere did not ride through Lexington, Massachusetts, shouting:  “the British are coming.”   This would have made no sense as everybody was British.   It would be like somebody today, seeing the police approaching, would shout out the warning that the Americans are coming.   Rather, Paul Revere warned that “the Regulars are coming,” a reference to full time professional troops.

>>>Geoffrey Wawro, a distinguished scholar of military history who teaches at the University of North Texas, led a discussion some years ago on “Global View” (History International Channel).   The panel concluded that the separation of England and America weakened the English-speaking world considerably.

>>>By 1800, almost twenty years after independence, Americans were paying more in taxes than they had ever paid under colonial rule.

>>>As the Patriots called themselves the “Sons of Liberty,” the Tories referred to them as the “Sons of Anarchy.”   Partly because of what happened a century earlier when England itself became a republic, many loyalists feared a total breakdown of law and order if the country became a republic, a country without a king.   A Biblically literate population was aware of the warning at the end of the Book of Judges:   “There was no king in Israel in those days; every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”  (Judges 25:25).   No king meant anarchy!

>>>Many of today’s super-patriots, those who celebrate the 4th of July most vigorously, ironically, would probably have been Tories in 1780.   Conservatives don’t like change or uncertainty.

>>>This brings us back to the Russians.  Newt Gingrich’s book “Yorktown” brings out that Catherine the Great of Russia offered to mediate between the British government and those rebelling against it.   One idea proposed was that Americans would keep their unitary nation, but remain within the Empire.  On the eve of the final Battle of Yorktown, this was acceptable to most Americans, including members of the Continental Congress.  This would have resulted in America being more like Canada.   It would, of course, also have meant there was no need for Canada – loyalists would have stayed where they were.   Catherine’s mediation attempt got nowhere – the autocratic Russian Empress was hardly a credible mediator between two sides that both believed in democracy.

>>>The victory at Yorktown would not have happened without the French navy.   After the battle, the situation was unclear.   It wasn’t until the King asked parliament for more money to fight the rebellion that the war finally ended – parliament refused his request.

>>>Cut off from the empire’s trading system, the US struggled financially after independence.  Even in the 1930’s, the nations of the British Empire recovered from the Great Depression quicker than the US.  America was anxious to break into the imperial trading club without becoming a part of the empire.

The question remains:   what did Americans gain from independence?  One thing comes immediately to mind – that the new country was no longer bound by British treaties with the “Indians;” they could now expand westward.

Ironically, it was a British bank that financed the Louisiana Purchase and British investors who helped build the railways that opened up the West.   So the Brits did their part to make the country expand anyway.

On the other hand, if those treaties had remained in effect, California may never have entered the Union and Hollywood might not exist – some would say, those are two very good reasons for remaining loyal to the Crown!

So, why did Americans revolt and why did the rebels (patriots) win?

Decades after the American Revolution, the Anglo-Israelite movement believed that the British Empire and the United States of America were the fulfillment of a prophecy in Genesis 48; that the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, would become a great company of nations (Ephraim; the British Empire and Commonwealth) and his brother would become a great single nation (Manasseh, the United States).   As the “company of nations” (Genesis 48:19) was united by the Crown, the great single nation had to break away from the crown, which is exactly what the United States did.   Note: ”He set Ephraim before Manasseh (verse 20)”. Britain was the world’s superpower before the United States.  In relative terms, Britain was also greater than its successor.  After the loss of the American colonies, the British went on to develop the greatest empire the world had ever seen.

In other words, God determined the outcome of the Revolutionary War in order to fulfill Bible prophecy.

GROWING DIVIDE BETWEEN ANGLOS AND EUROPE

Jean Claude Juncker is the President of the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union.   Clearly frustrated and somewhat dazed since the successful Brexit vote nine months ago, Mr. Juncker yesterday threatened to support secessionist movements in the United States, if President Trump continues to support the British Brexit.   He specifically mentioned Ohio and Texas.

As Ohio has no secessionist movement that I’m aware of, it shows that Mr. Juncker has little knowledge or understanding of the US.   If he had listed Alaska, Hawaii and California, along with Texas, he would have had more credibility.   All four states have vocal secessionist movements.

However, Mr. Juncker is not the only one who is ignorant of other nations a long way away.   Americans have very little knowledge or understanding of Europe.   The vast majority of people in the United States have never heard of Mr. Juncker.   As the president of the executive branch of the EU, which has more people and a bigger economy than the US, he is one of the most powerful people in the world.   If the European Union succeeds in forming a military alliance and acquires nuclear weapons, both of which are being discussed, he could be the most powerful man in the world.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that Ignorance on both sides of the ocean could easily cause the Atlantic alliance to unravel.

This has to happen to fulfill Biblical prophecies about the coming Beast-power in Europe and the fall of the English speaking nations.

Footnote:  Headline on tonight’s BBC World News America:  Germany Rejects US Pressure For NATO Spending Rise.

_______________________________________________________________

GERMANY, JAPAN PUSH TRADE PACT IN MERKEL BID TO STYMIE TRUMP          (Bloomberg)

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called for a concerted effort to defend free trade, expanding the list of economic powers joining together to counter the U.S. shift toward protectionism.   After clashing with President Donald Trump on economic policy at their first White House meeting, Merkel called for swift conclusion of a trade accord between Japan and the European Union.   That followed a renewed German-Chinese commitment to open markets on the eve of her trip to Washington and Merkel’s backing for a free-trade accord between the EU and Mercosur, the South American economic bloc. “Internationally, we are seeing a tendency toward protectionism and navel-gazing,” Abe said alongside Merkel during a news conference at the CeBit tech show in Hanover, Germany, on Monday.   “What we need is trade that’s both fair and free.”

The display of German-Japanese unity underscores a rift elsewhere among the world’s biggest economic powers after U.S. insistence on “fair” trade triggered conflict at a weekend meeting of Group of 20 finance chiefs in Germany.   Another potential clash looms when Trump, Abe, Merkel and the leaders of Canada, France, Italy and the U.K. meet at a Group of Seven summit in Sicily in May.   Merkel pushed back against Trump’s pledge to enact “America First” policies and drew contrast to Japan and Germany, the world’s third and fourth-biggest economies.

———————————————————————–

THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD

CNN’s special:   “The most powerful man in the world” profiled Vladimir Putin, partly in an attempt to show why he is so paranoid when it comes to the opposition.   His critics all seem to be found dead shortly after making their criticism.   The one-hour documentary was produced by Fareed Zakaria.   It was an interesting perspective.   Putin has more power than Trump, both domestically and internationally.   Russia also has more nuclear weapons than the US.

——————————————————————– 

REAL POSSIBILITY OF 4 FAMINES AT SAME TIME

Another famine is about to tighten its grip on Somalia.   And it’s not the only crisis that aid agencies are scrambling to address.   For the first time since anyone can remember, there is a very real possibility of four famines — in Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria and Yemen — breaking out at once, endangering more than 20 million lives.

One powerful lesson from the last famine in Somalia, just six years ago, was that famines were not simply about food.   They are about something even more elemental: water.   If there was any doubt, the recent news from Somalia or Nigeria should erase it.  — Reuters.

———————————————————————–

CANADIAN ANTI-SEMITISM

In a Friday sermon delivered at Dar Al-Arkam Mosque in Montreal, Canada, Jordanian cleric Sheikh Muhammad Bin Musa Aal Nasr cited an antisemitic hadith, according to which, on Judgment Day, the Trees and the Stones Will Call on Muslims to Kill the Jews.  The sermon was delivered on December 23, 2016, and was posted on the Mosque’s YouTube page. (MEMRI 3/31/17)

—————————————————————————— 

WHAT’S GOING ON?     (Peggy Noonan, WSJ, 12/16/17, while President Obama was still in office)

“I close with a story that I haven’t seen in the mainstream press.   This week the Daily Caller’s Peter Hasson reported that recent Syrian refugees being resettled in Virginia, were sent to the state’s poorest communities.   Data from the State Department showed that almost all Virginia’s refugees since October “have been placed in towns with lower incomes and higher poverty rates, hours away from the wealthy suburbs outside of Washington, D.C.”   Of 121 refugees, 112 were placed in communities at least 100 miles from the nation’s capital.   The suburban counties of Fairfax, Loudoun and Arlington—among the wealthiest in the nation, and home to high concentrations of those who create, and populate government and the media—have received only nine refugees.”

—————————————————————————- 

WORSENING SHIA-SUNNI CONFLICT

“ISIS Calls On Iranian Sunnis To Rise Up And Carry Out Attacks In Major Cities In The Country,   Warns Iran:   ‘Just As You Tasted Our Power In Iraq And Syria. , , , We Will Conquer Persia And Restore It As A Sunni Country” (MEMRI 3/28)

——————————————————————————- 

MORE BRITISH BLESSINGS – WRITTEN BY AN INDIAN NATIONAL

This Quote is taken from the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire by H. W. Crocker (Oct 21, 2008).

The paragraph is written by Dinesh D’Souza, an Indian who now lives in the United States.

“As someone who grew up in India, I often hear people ask, ‘What have the British done for us?’  Until I read this book, I didn’t have the full answer.   And here is Crocker’s answer:   ‘Apart from roads, railways, ports, schools, a parliamentary system of government, rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, the rule of law, and the English language . . . nothing!’”

Dinesh D’Souza, President of the King’s College and best-selling author of The Roots of Obama’s Rage

 ———————————————————————————–

RANSOM, Kansas — The Farm Belt is hurtling toward a milestone: Soon there will be fewer than two million farms in America for the first time since pioneers moved westward after the Louisiana Purchase.  (WSJ 2/8)

————————————————————————————

MOST AMUSING LINE IN A TV SHOW

I don’t recommend the program, but Diane and I did watch the first episode of “Time after Time” on a Sunday night when there was no Masterpiece Theatre.   The new ABC show is based loosely (very loosely) on HG Wells’ book The Time Machine.   While showing his friends his machine in 1890, Jack the Ripper absconds in the machine to New York City in 2017, in an effort to hide  from the police who are looking for him.

After the usual Ripper murders in America’s financial capital, HG decides he needs to persuade Jack to return to Victorian London with him.   Jack responded with the following:

“Are you kidding?   In Victorian London I was a freak.   Here, I’m merely an amateur!”

————————————————————————-

ATTITUDES HAVE CHANGED

A young manager at our local Kroger store complained to me recently that it was his birthday, yet he had to work.   He had also been required to work every day over the Thanksgiving weekend. He thought it was because he was the only manager with no children.  I suggested he start a family.   “No way.   The last thing I want is kids.”

There’s a number of young men roughly the same age at our local bank.   Every single one of them has their own apartment and is living with a girlfriend, as is the manager at Kroger.   I would assume that none of these relationships is platonic.

This illustrates a major problem that affects the western world – a low birthrate.

Previous generations believed God’s instruction:   “to go forth and multiply.”  (Genesis 1:22)

The West has a low birthrate and is making up for the short fall in people with seemingly unrestricted immigration from undeveloped countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

People from these countries will radically change our society – but few seem to care.

Other nations are preparing for war.   We see it on the news all the time.   War is fought mainly by young men.   When the time comes, will we have enough young men?

I am reminded of another Bible verse from more than 2,500 years ago.   It could be speaking to us today.   “They shall commit harlotry, but not increase;  Because they have ceased obeying the Lord.” (Hosea 4:10)

Sexual immorality is rampant, but there are few children.   Children are a blessing, but few realize that in today’s western world.