Tuesday, November 5, 2019
TOCQUEVILLE'S PIG'S BREAKFAST IN AMERICA
'The emotional and moral restraint of the American people...'
This was the wishful thinking of a democratic atheist revolutionary.
This is what he thought of America in a more sober moment, a real Pig's Breakfast:
'...in a word a society possessing no roots, no memories, no prejudices, no routine, no common ideas, no national character.' AT to Chabrol, See Clark, p. 61.
People think that colonists were long united against Britain prior to 1776. They were not. They were disunited, and usually at one another's throats over land or religion or trade, and more.
Colonial America "displayed the problems of England, Scotland, and Ireland in a more acute form." Clark, Ch 3 sec III.
The unrest, disorder, and fragmentation inherent in the place did not improve with time and every increasing immigration of impoverished heterodox, later including even Catholic and Jewish disparate populations, developments unthinkable at colonial foundings.
They think that winning the American colonial Civil War resulted in an end to all manner of violent and wide ranging religious social and economic unrest. It did not.
See, for example, T P Slaughter, The Whiskey Rebellion; Independence: The Tangled Roots of the American Revolution; J C D Clark, The Language of Liberty, Ch 3, Secs III, V especially.
Whigs read Tocqueville and then read ideas only becoming current by around 1830 back into 18th Century.
R R Palmer had written at great length about a democratic revolution, all of which I read, but he couldn't figure out why they had not used that word! Clark explained why. See Our Shadowed Present, p. 230
'The emotional and moral restraint of the American people...'
This was the wishful thinking of a democratic atheist revolutionary.
This is what he thought of America in a more sober moment, a real Pig's Breakfast:
'...in a word a society possessing no roots, no memories, no prejudices, no routine, no common ideas, no national character.' AT to Chabrol, See Clark, p. 61.
People think that colonists were long united against Britain prior to 1776. They were not. They were disunited, and usually at one another's throats over land or religion or trade, and more.
Colonial America "displayed the problems of England, Scotland, and Ireland in a more acute form." Clark, Ch 3 sec III.
The unrest, disorder, and fragmentation inherent in the place did not improve with time and every increasing immigration of impoverished heterodox, later including even Catholic and Jewish disparate populations, developments unthinkable at colonial foundings.
They think that winning the American colonial Civil War resulted in an end to all manner of violent and wide ranging religious social and economic unrest. It did not.
See, for example, T P Slaughter, The Whiskey Rebellion; Independence: The Tangled Roots of the American Revolution; J C D Clark, The Language of Liberty, Ch 3, Secs III, V especially.
Whigs read Tocqueville and then read ideas only becoming current by around 1830 back into 18th Century.
R R Palmer had written at great length about a democratic revolution, all of which I read, but he couldn't figure out why they had not used that word! Clark explained why. See Our Shadowed Present, p. 230
Whigs read Tocqueville and then read ideas only becoming current by around 1830 back into 18th Century.
R R Palmer had written at great length about a democratic revolution, all of which I read, but he couldn't figure out why they had not used that word! Clark explained why. See Our Shadowed Present, p. 230
Thursday, May 2, 2019
SEVEN YEARS WAR RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS OF COLONIES
It was neither about nationalism, or about the white race in America, at least at first.
At that point, Seven Years War, 1763, it still had nothing to do with either early developing (British) monogenesis, or (colonists', and later, 19th century, Americans') polygenesis.
Subsequent post Enlightenment, 19th 20th and 21st century scientific discoveries have shown conclusively, of course, that monogenesis was not how humans developed at all. But that is a different topic.
Re Seven Years War, I haven't read the books, but this seems to make sense, chronologically, and tactically. Clark, in an aside.
The origin of the term patriot went back to the opposition Whigs of 1720s, (complicated story) and that is the source, and the time period, give or take 20 years, of much of later American rebel rhetoric. Clark, p 91. Not Locke. Bailyn, Robbins, Palmer, Schroeder, Clark.
At that point, Seven Years War, 1763, it still had nothing to do with either early developing (British) monogenesis, or (colonists', and later, 19th century, Americans') polygenesis.
Subsequent post Enlightenment, 19th 20th and 21st century scientific discoveries have shown conclusively, of course, that monogenesis was not how humans developed at all. But that is a different topic.
Re Seven Years War, I haven't read the books, but this seems to make sense, chronologically, and tactically. Clark, in an aside.
The origin of the term patriot went back to the opposition Whigs of 1720s, (complicated story) and that is the source, and the time period, give or take 20 years, of much of later American rebel rhetoric. Clark, p 91. Not Locke. Bailyn, Robbins, Palmer, Schroeder, Clark.
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
THE AMERICAN REBELLION IN CONTEXT
No longer enough to have read historians like Bailyn, Greene, Robbins, Palmer, Maier, Gay and various so called Enlightenment scholars and historians, historians of the French Revolution (an enormous corpus), or the legions of American and European political science, constitutional, and political philosophy scholars, and the treasure trove of economists and economic historians and other social scientists like Weber who have underpinned some of them, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment