Maggie on form

Hmm, very interesting interview with Maggie. I can't embed, so check out the link. It seems to be prior to the 1987 election. The only draw-back in a fine performance from hers truly is the wingeing and whining Scottish interviewer.

I dare myself Mayor for the interim!

Dear fellow citizens, it seems the administrative system for determining our government has catastrophically broken down in London and, in order to see off the dread spectre of a descent into anarchy, I feel it my duty to declare myself Mayor for the interim, in the absence of someone - anyone - more qualified than my humble self.

It's an old one, but it still rings true

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

'Cromwell between two pillars' (?) ; from the British Library

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!

Oliver Cromwell; closing speech of the Long Parliament, 30 April 1653

An old argument, but a vitally important one

Over at Liberal Conspiracy (sic), one of their number is attacking Daniel Hannan for his comments on Roosevelt's New Deal. It's enough to make statues weep, to see the same ludicrous nonsense trotted out to defend the fascistic Roosevelt and his disastrous policies.

The problem is that, even if people take different views, there has to be a common area of facts, but on this issue, no matter what evidence and rational debate is presented to overthrow the fairy tale of Roosevelt's success ( and you'd think the fact it's known as 'The Great Depression' may suggest a lack of success), it is a mammoth task to cut through the wall of willful ignorance. The enemies of liberty cannot refute the evidence of Benjamin M. Anderson, Murray Rothbard etc., who have laid out the water-tight case against Roosevelt's stinking New Deal. All they can do is cover their ears with their hands and shout 'la la la'.

Anyway, here's an interesting extract from Thaddeus Russell's 'Renegade History of the United States', which draws attention to the parallels between Roosevelt's policies and those of Hitler and Mussolini, and notes many instances where these latter two and their supporters were effusive in their praise for America's Great Dictator.

Pour encourager les autres

Searching for a picture to encapsulate my repugnance for our latter-day puritans, the anti-smoker, anti-drinker, anti-salt brigade (salt! you fucking nutters), I came to the image below, which if you click upon it, will take you to the place I found it; a charming site named 'Executed Today', from which I learn, that (not today, but) on 15th December, 1914 the French army decimated a Tunisian regiment of theirs for retreating. My reaction is the same as the writer on that site, one of surprise that such a practice managed to continue into the 20th Century.

Black Prince Must Be Condemned for Limoges Massacre

Much as the hand-over of Limoges to the French King represented a betrayal of the basest kind on the part of the Bishop, it cannot justify the vile slaughter of the guiltless inhabitants, many of whom, women and children begging for mercy from the Prince of Wales men. To no avail, there being no mercy only murderous wrath in the heart of the Prince.

The Prince should reflect that all are accountable to a Just God, and whatever absolution for his sins he may be persuaded to buy may not be so skillfully worded as not to miss the occasional mortal felony, if they be so many and widely scattered.

From Froissart's Chronicles, the Sack of Limoges, 1370

The prince of Wales remained about a month, and not more, before the city of Limoges: he would not allow of any assaults or skirmishing, but kept his miners steadily at work. The knights in the town perceived what they were about, and made countermines to destroy them; but they failed in their attempt. When the miners of the prince (who, as they found themselves countermined, kept changing the line of direction of their own mine) had finished their business, they came to the prince, and said: “My lord, we are ready, and will throw down, whenever you please, a very large part of the wall into the ditch, through the breach of which you many enter the town at your ease and without danger.” This news was very agreeable to the prince, who replied, “I wish then that you would prove your words to-morrow morning at six o’clock.” The miners set fire to the combustibles in the mine; and on the morrow morning, as they had foretold the prince, they flung down a great piece of wall, which filled the ditches. The English saw this with pleasure, for they were all armed and prepared to enter the town. Those on foot did so, and ran to the gate, which they destroyed as well as the barriers, for there were no other defences; and all this was done so suddenly that the inhabitants had not time to prevent it.

The prince, the duke of Lancaster, the earls of Cambridge and of Pembroke, sir Guiscard d’Angle and the others, with their men, rushed into the town. You would then have seen pillagers, active to do mischief, running through the town, slaying men, women, and children, according to their orders. It was a most melancholy business; for all ranks, ages and sexes cast themselves on their knees before the prince, begging for mercy; but he was so inflamed 454 with passion and revenge that he listened to none, but all were put to the sword, wherever they could be found, even those who were not guilty: for I know not why the poor were not spared, who could not have had any part in this treason; but they suffered for it, and indeed more than those who had been the leaders of the treachery. There was not that day in the city of Limoges any heart so hardened, or that had any sense of religion, who did not deeply bewail the unfortunate events passing before their eyes; for upwards of three thousand men, women and children were put to death that day. God have mercy on their souls! for they were veritable martyrs.

A company of English, in entering the town, hastened to the palace of the bishop, whom they there found and took prisoner, carrying him, without any regard to his dignity, to the Prince of Wales, who, eyeing him indignantly, told him that his head should be cut off and ordered him out of his presence.

We will now speak of those knights who were in the town, sir John de Villemur, sir Hugh de la Roche, and Roger de Beaufort, son to the count de Beaufort, governors of the city. When they perceived the tribulation which was overpowering them, they said: “We shall all be slain for a certainty, if we do not gallantly defend ourselves: let us therefore sell out lives as dearly as good knights ought to do.” Upon this, sir John de Villemur said to Roger de Beaufort, “You must be knighted.” Roger replied, “Sir, I have not as yet signalised myself sufficiently for that honour, but I thank you much for you good opinion in suggesting it to me.” No more was said, for they had not time to hold further conversation. They collected in a body, and, placing themselves before an old wall, sir John de Villemur and sir Hugh de la Roche displayed their banners, and drew up in good order. They might be, in the whole, about fourscore. The duke of Lancaster and the earl of Cambridge, with their men, advanced upon them, and dismounted, to be on an equality with the enemy. They attacked them with hearty good will. You may easily imagine that this handful of men could not resist the English, but were all slain or made prisoners.

455

The duke of Lancaster was engaged for a long time with sir John de Villemur, who was a hardy knight, strong and well made. The earl of Cambridge singled out sir Hugh de la Roche, and the earl of Pembroke Roger de Beaufort, who was but a simple esquire. These three Frenchmen did many valorous deeds of arms, as all allowed, but ill did it betide those who approached too near. The prince, coming that way in his carriage, looked on the combat with great pleasure, and enjoyed it so much that his heart was softened and his anger appeased. After the combat had lasted a considerable time, the Frenchmen, with one accord, viewing their swords, said, “My lords, we are yours: you have vanquished us: therefore act according to the law of arms.” "By God,” replied the duke of Lancaster, “sir John, we do not intend otherwise, and we accept you for our prisoners.” Thus, as I have been informed, were these three knights taken. But the business was not here ended, for the whole town was pillaged, burnt, and totally destroyed. The English then departed, carrying with them their booty and prisoners. They marched to Cognac, where the princess had remained, and there the prince disbanded his forces, not intending to do anything more that season; for he did not feel himself at his ease, as every exertion aggravated his disorder, which was increasing, to the great dismay of his brothers and all those about him.

I must inform you how the bishop of Limoges escaped with imprisonment, who had been in imminent danger of his life. The duke of Lancaster asked him of the prince, who consented, and ordered him to be given up to the duke, for him to do with him according as he willed. The bishop having good friends, they sent information of his situation to the pope, who had lately arrived at Avignon; and fortunate was it for the bishop they did so, otherwise he would have been a dead man. The pope wrote such pressing and kind letters to the duke of Lancaster, to request he would give him the bishop, that he was unwilling to refuse, and sent him to the pope, who felt himself exceedingly obliged for it.

As recommended by Mises

I'm reading Benjamin M. Anderson's 'Economics and the Public Welfare' at the moment, recounting the economic history of the period 1914 to 1946, mainly of the United States, but also, and necessarily so, covering events in Europe and the rest of the world. The following observation (at the end) struck me as particularly well said.

France entered the war with bad government finance. She had a national debt of 30 billion gold francs as against an estimated national wealth of 300 billion gold francs at the beginning of the war. France had had chronic deficits for many years before the war. There was governmental extravagance, and there was a great reluctance on the part of the people to submit to direct taxes. They did tolerate very heavy indirect taxes. When Caillaux undertook early in 1914 to introduce an income tax of 2 percent in the effort to balance the French budget, the outcry in France was so extreme that one would have supposed that the end of the world had come. During the war France did relatively little with taxation, and the public debt ran up from 30 billion to 147 billion francs before the war was over.

Then France began to have some real deficits. Adherents of the school of Keynes and Hansen would do well to study the history of French finance from 1918 to 1926. The one difference between the policies followed in France in this period and the polices advocated by the New Deal spenders for the United States is to be found in the fact that the French were ashamed of it and tried to conceal it and to find excusees for it, whereas the New Deal spenders would glorify it and call it "investment".

From chapter 14 - France 1918-24

A republic, if you can keep it

I have been reading Garet Garrett's 'People's Pottage' (published under the title 'Ex-America' by Caxton Press), three essays grimly dissecting America's descent from republic to empire. Sadly Garett's lament for lost liberty did not stop the slide, but it is valuable to know better the steps that were taken, most notably by Roosevelt and Truman, to destroy that city on the hill. Here's an extract from the last one, 'Rise of Empire':

PROPERTIES OF EMPIRE
I

If you may have Empire with or without a constitution, even within the form of a republican constitution, and if also you may have Empire with or without an emperor, then how may the true marks of Empire be distinguished with certainty? What are they?

War and conquest? No. Republics may make war and pursue the aims of conquest. Continental conquest did not give the United States the character of Empire. Continental conquest was but the growth of a lively political organism, acting from its own center. Thenatural limits of it were geographic. Notions of Empire did at the same time arise—notions of external conquest — but they were sternly put down by the republican spirit.

Colonies, then? No, not colonies. At least, you have to say what you mean by colonies. They are of many kinds and represent diverse intentions in time and circumstance. An over-populated republic may swarm, as bees do. Colonies did not make Greece an Empire. The Greek colonists were emigrants. As they moved across the Aegean Sea to the shores of Asia Minor they took with them fire from the sacred hearth, and were sometimes subsidized out of the public treasury as if they were children entitled to a farewell portion of the family wealth; but beyond that they were on their own, and when a colony was founded it was a sovereign state, not politically bound to the mother-state.

War, conquest, colonization, expansion—these are political exertions that occur in the history of any kind of state that was ever known, tyrannies, oligarchies, republics or democracies. But let us regard the things that belong only to empire, and set them down. Then we shall see.

II

The first requisite of Empire is:
The executive power of government shall be dominant.

Read on...

Sequoyah: the state that never was

Listening to Lew Rockwell's latest podcast, an interview with historian Charles Burris discussing, amongst other things, the history of third parties in American politics, I learnt of the following:

The State of Sequoyah was a proposed state to be established in the eastern part of present-day Oklahoma. In 1905, faced by proposals to end their tribal governments, Native Americans of the Five Civilized Tribes in Indian Territory proposed such a state as a means to retain some control of their land. Their intention was to have a state under Native American constitution and rule.[1] The proposed state was named in honor of Sequoyah, the Cherokee who created a writing system in 1825 for the Cherokee language.

So much history, so little time. From the blurb at LRC:

Lew Rockwell talks to Charles Burris about political revisionism (and a little Kennedy assassination revisionism, too).

Charles A. Burris: Archives

The CIA and The Media Article by Carl Bernstein

History, but not for the faint-hearted

Mature readers click through to see this grisly image in better detail. It is of the execution of François Ravaillac, the assassin of Henri IV of France, in the manner reserved for regicides. You will see there are various stages of the execution played out in the picture, so you get to see before and after the horses tear him limb from limb.

Interesting, huh?

Joanna who?

Joanna of Naples - I like her already! Here's Nany Goldstone discussing "The Lady Queen: the notorious reign of Joanna I, Queen of Naples, Jerusalem & Sicily". I have not read this book, but it certainly strikes me as an interesting piece of the historical jigsaw that has hereto for been lurking down the back of the scholarly sofa.

When the Democrats were the good guys

There is an interesting, albeit tragic, watershed in American politics in the last decade of the 19th century, when the Democratic Party went from being the champions of free trade, laissez-faire, individual liberty and sound money, fighting the good fight against the protectionist, prohibitionist, statist Republicans, to being a busted flush disaster.

Seeking to learn more, I came across this essay by David T. Beito and Linda Royster Beito, entitled; "Gold Democrats and the Decline of Laissez-Faire 1896-1900", which discusses the attempts by the righteous remnant to keep alive the Party of Jefferson, Jackson and Grover Cleveland.

I commend it to you, dear readers.

When intellectuals collide

Here's a debate between neo-con pope Bill Buckley and Noam Chomsky from 1969. Very interesting, if you can bear Buckley's patrician drawl. I haven't watched it all, my sympathies are running strongly with Noam.

Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5; Part 6; Part 7.

Also I find this interview with Ron Paul from his Libertarian Party presidential run in 1988. Unlike crooked frauds like Gingrich, Romney and the other poster boys for the establishment, Ron Paul is speaking the same message then as now.

A snippet from Livy

I found the following passage interesting from Livy's History of Rome (Book XLIV), written in the reign of Augustus. It takes place prior to the decisive battle between the Roman forces and the Macedonians in 168 BC. Perhaps my dear readers will agree.

"When Aemilius Paulus saw that the site of the camp had been marked out and the baggage collected, he first quietly withdrew the triarii from the back of the line, then the principes, leaving the hastati standing in front, in case the enemy made any movement. Finally he retired these also, withdrawing those on the right first, maniple by maniple. In this way the infantry were withdrawn without creating any confusion, leaving the cavalry and light infantry facing the enemy. The cavalry were not recalled from their position until the rampart and fosse in front of the camp were carried their full length. The king was quite ready to give battle that day, but as his men were aware that the delay was due to the enemy he was quite content, and he too led his men back to camp.

When the fortification of the camp was completed, C. Sulpicius Gallus, a military tribune attached to the second legion, who had been a praetor the year before, obtained the consul's permission to call the soldiers on parade. He then explained that on the following night the moon would lose her light from the second hour to the fourth, and no one must regard this as a portent, because this happened in the natural order of things at stated intervals, and could be known beforehand and predicted. Just in the same way, then, as they did not regard the regular rising and setting of the sun and moon or the changes in the light of the moon from full circle to a thin and waning crescent as a marvel, so they ought not to take its obscuration when it is hidden in the shadow of the earth for a supernatural portent.

On the next night - September 4 - the eclipse took place at the stated hour, and the Roman soldiers thought that Gallus possessed almost divine wisdom. It gave a shock to the Macedonians as portending the fall of their kingdom and the ruin of their nation, nor could their soothsayers give any other explanation. Shouts and howls went on in the Macedonian camp until the moon emerged and gave her light."

Old News

Mussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci were stopped by communist partisans Valerio and Bellini and identified by the Political Commissar of the partisans' 52nd Garibaldi Brigade, Urbano Lazzaro, on 27 April 1945, near the village of Dongo (Lake Como), as they headed for Switzerland to board a plane to escape to Spain. During this time Claretta's brother even posed as a Spanish consul. Mussolini had been traveling with retreating German forces and was apprehended while attempting to escape recognition by wearing a German military uniform. After several unsuccessful attempts to take them to Como they were brought to Mezzegra. They spent their last night in the house of the De Maria family.

The next day, Mussolini and Petacci were both summarily executed, along with most of the members of their 15-man train, primarily ministers and officials of the Italian Social Republic. The shootings took place in the small village of Giulino di Mezzegra. According to the official version of events, the shootings were conducted by Colonnello Valerio, whose real name was Walter Audisio. Audisio was the communist partisan commander who was reportedly given the order to kill Mussolini by the National Liberation Committee. When Audisio entered the room where Mussolini and the other fascists were being held, he reportedly announced, "I have come to rescue you!... Do you have any weapons?" He then had them loaded into transports and driven a short distance. Audisio ordered, "Get down"; Petacci hugged Mussolini and refused to move away from him when they were taken to an empty space. Shots were fired and Petacci fell down. Just then Mussolini opened his jacket and screamed, "Shoot me in the chest!" Audisio shot him in the chest. Mussolini fell but did not die and was breathing heavily. Audisio went near and he shot one more bullet in his chest. Mussolini's face looked as if he had significant pain. Audisio said to his driver, "Look at his face, the emotions on his face don't suit him." The other members of Mussolini's entourage were also executed before a firing squad later that same day towards nightfall.

On 29 April 1945, the bodies of Mussolini, Petacci, and the other executed Fascists were loaded into a moving van and trucked south to Milan. There, at 3:00 am, they were dumped on the ground in the old Piazzale Loreto. The piazza had been renamed "Piazza Quindici Martiri" in honor of 15 anti-Fascists recently executed there.

After being shot, kicked, and spat upon, the bodies were hung upside down on meathooks from the roof of an Esso gas station. The bodies were then stoned by civilians from below. This was done both to discourage any Fascists from continuing the fight and as an act of revenge for the hanging of many partisans in the same place by Axis authorities. The corpse of the deposed leader became subject to ridicule and abuse. Fascist loyalist Achille Starace was captured and sentenced to death and then taken to the Piazzale Loreto and shown the body of Mussolini. Starace, who once said of Mussolini "He is a god," saluted what was left of his leader just before he was shot. The body of Starace was subsequently strung up next to the body of Mussolini.

After his death and the display of his corpse in Milan, Mussolini was buried in an unmarked grave in Musocco, the municipal cemetery to the north of the city. On Easter Sunday 1946 his body was located and dug up by Domenico Leccisi and two other neo-Fascists. Making off with their hero, they left a message on the open grave: "Finally, O Duce, you are with us. We will cover you with roses, but the smell of your virtue will overpower the smell of those roses."

From Wikipedia

A snippet from History

England, November 1612; heir to the throne dies aged 18 of typhoid fever:

Prince Henry's death was widely regarded as a tragedy for the nation. According to Charles Carlton, "Few heirs to the English throne have been as widely and deeply mourned as Prince Henry." His body lay in state at St. James's Palace for four weeks. On 7 December, over a thousand people walked in the mile-long cortege to Westminster Abbey to hear the two-hour sermon delivered by the Archbishop of Canterbury. As Henry's body was lowered into the ground, his chief servants broke their staves of office at the grave. An insane man ran naked through the mourners, yelling that he was the boy's ghost.

Taken from Wikipedia

Pretty Clear

I've been leafing through Suetonius, starting at the backs of the chapters (ergo the Deaths rather than the Lives of the Caesars). One aspect of history which the Roman writers seldom neglect is the record of the signs and portents which illuminate the gathering clouds with flashes of lightning.

Agrippina reproaches Nero for the death of Britannicus

The race of the Caesars ended with Nero. That this would be so was shown by many portents and especially by two very significant ones.

Years before, as Livia was returning to her estate near Veii, immediately after her marriage with Augustus, an eagle which flew by dropped into her lap a white hen, holding in its beak a sprig of laurel, just as the eagle had carried it off. Livia resolved to rear the fowl and plant the sprig, whereupon such a great brood of chickens was hatched that to this day the villa is called Ad Gallinas, and such a grove of laurel sprang up, that the Caesars gathered their laurels from it when they were going to celebrate triumphs.

Moreover it was the habit of those who triumphed to plant other branches at once in that same place, and it was observed that just before the death of each of them the tree which he had planted withered.

Now in Nero's last year the whole grove died from the root up, as well as all the hens.

Furthermore, when shortly afterwards the temple of the Caesars was struck by lightning, the heads fell from all the statues at the same time, and his sceptre, too, was dashed from the hand of Augustus.

From the opening of the Life of Galba

Pudel or Peper?

... Or to put it another way; Roundhead curr or Cavalier dog?

Via Counting Cats, I learn that the cavalier standard is being raised against the control-freak puritans who infest every organ of the state, intent on inflicting their godless post-millennial piety upon the rest of us. I find myself in a dilemma. Much as I oppose the puritans, identifying myself with the cavaliers sticks in the craw somewhat.

If my understanding of such matters were based on period dramas, I guess it wouldn't be too hard. The cavaliers get to wear the best clobber, and spend their time in drunken revelry, surrounded by bounteous serving wenches in those corset things beloved of all red-blooded men, whilst the roundheads get the small beer and the stern lectures. To what extent this is accurate, I cannot say, but it would go some way to explaining who won the war.

Just as politics today is more complicated than the simple left versus right which we are presented with, so it was then. The original Trooper William Thompson, in whose honour this blog is dedicated, served in Christopher Bethel's troop within Scroope's cavalry regiment of the New Model Army. He was kicked out in 1647, on trumped up charges relating to an incident involving drinking, gambling and fighting - so, for our latter-day civil guerrillas, a good cavalier! After various misadventures, he died fighting Cromwell's loyalists in the aftermath of the last big mutiny, against compulsory service in Ireland, 1649. So, like the greatest radical of this period, John Lilburne, he struggled both against the king and the military junta which replaced him.

Thus, if I were to join with the anti-puritan cavaliers de jour, I will have to look to someone like Edward Sexby as a role model. Sexby distinguished himself at the Putney Debates as one of the more eloquent of the army radicals, later turned against Nol when he dissolved Parliament and spent the last few years of Cromwell's time plotting his assassination and knocking around in exile with his enemy's enemies.

Notes:
Monty Python's Oliver Cromwell song
Edward Sexby's inflamatory anti-Cromwell pamphlet 'Killing Noe Murder'

California's gay history

The Guardian story about the prospect of mandatory gay/lesbian etc history in the schools is one of those straws in the wind that I'll leave to others, but it was this part which sparked my recollection:

During debate about the bill, supporters gave examples of historical figures they said would be featured, including Friedrich von Steuben, a military adviser to George Washington forced out of Prussia because he was gay, and the British mathematics genius Alan Turing.

Hmm, not sure they should be bragging too much about that guy, if they're looking for positive role models ...

... As if the ragged soldiers at Valley Forge did not have enough troubles, they were to be further plagued by the arrival, in February, of a mendacious Prussian braggart and soldier of fortune calling himself "Baron von Steuben." Actually, Captain Steuben was neither a baron nor, as he claimed, a Prussian general; but he managed quickly to be elevated to the post of inspector general of the Continental Army. Steuben set about to Prussianize the American army, and so now the hapless soldiery suffered the infliction of the whole structure of petty and meaningless routine designed to stamp out individuality and transform the free and responsible soldier into an automaton subject to the will of his rulers. Ever since he had embarked on the Philadelphia campaign, Washington had grown ever further away from the guerrilla tactics that had won him victory at Trenton (and had defeated Burgoyne). Washington had no desire to become a guerrilla chieftain; to his aristocratic temper the only path to glory was through open, frontal combat as practiced by the great states of Europe. Washington had tried this formula, and lost dismally at Brandywine and at Germantown, but this experience taught him no real lessons. He was delighted to have Steuben continue the process he himself had begun in the first year of war of imposing petty enslavement upon a body of free men. Until recently, historians have rhapsodized uncritically over the benefits of Steuben's training, of the enormous difference in the army's performance. But Washington's and his army's performance was equally undistinguished before and after Steuben; any differences were scarcely visible.

In the midst of this Prussianizing of the American army, Charles Lee was released in a prisoner exchange in early April. While Washington and Steuben were taking the army in an ever more European direction, Lee in captivity was moving the other way—pursuing his insights into a fullfledged and elaborated proposal for guerrilla warfare. He presented his plan to Congress, as a "Plan for the Formation of the American Army." Bitterly attacking Steuben's training of the army according to the "European Plan," Lee charged that fighting British regulars on their own terms was madness and courted crushing defeat: "If the Americans are servilely kept to the European Plan, they will . . . be laugh'd at as a bad army by their enemy, and defeated in every [encounter]. . . . [The idea] that a decisive action in fair ground may be risqued is talking nonsense." Instead, he declared that "a plan of defense, harassing and impeding canalone succeed," particularly if based on the rough terrain west of the Susquehannah River in Pennsylvania. He also urged the use of cavalry and of light infantry (in the manner of Dan Morgan), both forces highly mobile and eminently suitable for the guerrilla strategy.

This strategic plan was ignored both by Congress and by Washington, all eagerly attuned to the new fashion of Prussianizing and to the attractions of a "real" army. Lee made himself further disliked by expressing yearnings for a negotiated peace, with full autonomy for America within the British empire. During his year in captivity, it seems he had partially reverted to the position of the English Whigs. He did not realize that the United States was now totally committed to independence, and that peace terms that would have been satisfactory three years earlier would no longer do. Too much should not be made of this, however; General Sullivan, in his earlier term of captivity, had also been temporarily persuaded of similar views.

Murray N. Rothbard - Conceived in Liberty volume 4 pp 225-226

Making History history

News to me: Ernest Lissner's depiction of the Poles surrendering at Moscow, 1612

I read Niall Ferguson's piece in the Graun on the poor state of state-run school History with a mixture of sympathy, resigned sorrow and I must say a measure of indifference. He is, I am sure right in what he says, and I would agree with him pretty much down the line, if I stood where he does.

I love History, and have done since I was a child. Prior to this moment, I was idly reading up on the French Wars of the Three Henrys, and before that learning something of the Polish-Muscovite War, which was triggered (my interest, not the war) by the picture above, which I saw on the RT website. However, whatever knowledge is stored away in the recesses of my mind, it did not come from the classroom. I dropped the subject aged 13. Before and since I have been eagerly educating myself, and I am confident that I will master the subject, if I apply myself for the next hundred or so years.

Every criticism Ferguson makes, I am sure to have made myself in private discussions. The lack of chronology, jumping back and forth between centuries and millennia, the concentration on histiography (interpreting is all very fine, but you have to learn stuff before you attempt to interpret it), the politically-correct choice of subject matter etc, and the plain fact that they're not doing it the way I would do it!

However, I don't see how this can be changed within the sphere of state education. The educational establishment can withstand any short-term siege by an upstart Minister. As Ferguson notes, Ofsted are content with things as they are, even when supplying the ammunition for his assault, so there will be no call for root and branch reform from that quarter. In any case, I doubt a state-mandated curriculum can ever be effective. Such a thing only continues a never-ending battle over what it should contain. Our society has been fragmented by a cultural war, and the teaching of History is one casualty. I doubt even a definition of the word could be agreed, let alone the syllabus!

So, I guess I'm going to cop out of the argument by playing the libertarian card; that state schooling is the fundamental problem. I am sure I agree with Ferguson on what History is and what it is not, and I think it a shame that most children do not have this on offer at school. What they must do, especially if they have any passion for it, is not wait for educational reforms, but follow their own noses and educate themselves.