Empire for Liberty: America in the Long Nineteenth Century

[Nathan Madien]

How many learn that the Republican Party, going back to its foundation, had strong nativistic, isolationist, Protestant moralist, and protectionist sentiments?

I am a Republican and I never knew that about my party. Knowing that history makes Donald Trump all the more understandable to me (though I don't particularly care for his style).

If this was a shoddy 'great man' historiography AAR you would have your wish. Alas, it is not. Though Stevens will drop around as we roll through Reconstruction.

I had alluded to a Sherman presidency earlier. Though, we're not really covering the presidents at all in this AAR as it is not my focus to do a great man history. Nor do I subscribe to such historiography personally. The only president who will get significant time in this AAR is William Jennings Bryan, who has already been referenced and promised multiple times.

What is it exactly about 'great man' historiography that you aren't too keen about?

Watson served as Vice President of the United States under William Jennings Bryan from 1897-1905...

When I read this, my first thought was "Hey! Wright Brothers on Bryan's watch!"

Between "William Jennings Bryan is going to be President" in your AAR and "George H.W. Bush is going to be President" in my AAR, we're quite spoilery aren't we?

 

[volksmarschall]

What is it exactly about 'great man' historiography that you aren't too keen about?

This can be a loaded question, especially for a philosopher. To keep it brief, I'll say a few things:
1) I find the idea of the individual actor and prime mover of history to be absurd. To illustrate just one example, "great generals" do not win wars or battles, the multitude of common and forgotten soldiers and junior offices do. There are many studies showing how small scale and flexible army unit tactics and liberty given to junior officers to move their units freely without superior authorization do far better than cumbersome armies that follow strict chains of command to those "great generals" and follow the preplanned battle plan which never goes according to plan.

2) There are presuppositional biases in the "great man" theory which privileges the atomistic individual as the cornerstone of reality. I reject that view metaphysically, and believe the opposite: humans are social, relational, and communitarian animals who thrive in social units and within social structures. Not only was this the common wisdom of the past philosophers until the emergence of the likes of Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, and the devil-incarnate John Locke, a great many scientific studies done on animals also highlights this seeming fact of reality. The famous NIMH study on rats by Dr. John Calhoun (indirectly subject of the wonderful children's book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH and the feature film "The Secret of NIMH") showed how the breakdown of social structures and basic social behaviorism of rats led to their extinction despite having plenty of food and nesting material and not yet overpopulating their spatial territory. Not mention the countless studies on other animals like apes, chimpanzees, and meerkats all showcase the basic facts of biology and science that humans, apparently, don't want to acknowledge. In fact, I published an essay back in April poking fun at the "we believe in science" and "march for science" people because no--you don't actually believe or accept science that disagrees with your political ideology. Such people only accept the science of global warming while rejecting the science of biology and social behaviorism. The great man theory, whether people realize it or not, rejects -- metaphysically and ontologically -- the understanding of humans as social animals.

Note: the word "social" comes the Latin word "socius" and "socii" which means friend and friends. Friends, of course, implies relationality. When people complain about the breakdown of "society," no S*it, "atomistic individualism" is the very opposite of society because being self-absorbed means not having meaningful relationships.

3) Veering more into my own views of philosophy, human nature, and historiography, I'm very much a geographic and environmental determinist, which has no bearings on "great man" theories of history.

 

[volksmarschall]

CHAPTER XIV EAST OF EDEN


The Cost of the Civil War​

What is little known about the rise of the populist movement, and the general expulsion of farmers and laborers at the hand of the east coast capitalist class, was how to pay for the Civil War, industrialization, and Reconstruction. Nothing is free and everything costs money. The U.S. Government incurred a huge debt in fighting the Civil War, and was piling an even greater debt in subsidizing economic development on behalf of the Boston and New York Brahmin and robber barons who controlled much of northeastern politics. The movement westward by many capitalists was also a means to try and pay for their economic advancement as well as acquiring the resources needed to fuel industrialization.

As is generally the case, the government—led by the Republican establishment—looked to the underclasses to fund the debt and also cracked down on silver and preferred the gold standard to achieve the repayment necessary to avoid bankruptcy. The Constitution of the United States specifies both gold and silver as legitimate currency for debt. The elimination of silver and the establishment of fiat currency were all attempts to solidify the gold-standard movement and to pay off war debts and subsidized industrialization. Gold, of course, was the privileged hard currency of the upper classes who had benefited from the destruction of the agrarian Old South and the ongoing Industrial Revolution while silver was the privileged hard currency of the working-classes as silver, though valuable, was always seen as less valuable in comparison to gold.

Before the Civil War 80% of White Americans owned land and land was the basis of America’s economy and wealth. It was, as mentioned before, the Jeffersonian dream of an agrarian and yeoman democracy. However, after the Civil War, the displacement of not just southern farmers but also western and northern farmers—like the Smith Family we covered in Chapter IX—caused a dramatic shift in land ownership and the cornerstone of wealth. By 1890, the decade that catapulted Bryan to the presidency, 9% of Americans owned over 70% of all wealth in the country as wealth transformed from land ownership to possession of capital. Socialism, as it was developed in the nineteenth century, was anti-progressive and highly reactionary in that it originally conceived of land and labor as the cornerstone of economics and wealth, and that the greater ownership of land and primacy of labor over capital was the future of history (utopian socialism). Only after the realities of industrialization became manifest did Karl Marx alter the older generation of socialism to fit with an industrialized and urbanized social reality. However, Marx's rejection of capital and belief in the primacy of labor and produced goods still afforded him to be counted among the reactionaries who rejected the primacy of economies of scale and, especially, the primacy of capital in economics.

A cartoon depicting John D. Rockefeller, one of America’s wealthiest industrialists, as the controller of the U.S. Government. Demonization of prominent capitalists and industrialists as the “real controllers” of the government was a common theme in populist literature and political cartoons.
​

Capitalism is a word that gets thrown around a lot by detractors and supporters alike. But few seem to know what “capitalism” means. The history of capitalism as a systematic word was not invented by Karl Marx, who simply referred to “capital,” but to the German sociologists, philosophers, and economists of the Historical School. Economic students generally learn the distinction between markets and capitalism or capital too; a market simply being the medium through which people make economic exchanges and transactions with each other. The market doesn’t necessarily concern itself with the force of exchanges and human action. What “capitalism” means is that capital—that is money—is the prime mover of economic interaction and main source for economic exchange and, ultimately, economic power.

The birth of capitalism of America, thus, begins after the Civil War when the main source of wealth and force of economic exchange moved from land to money and the acceptance of economies of scale.

The battle between the populists and the industrialists was not necessarily one of wealth and wealth redistribution, per se, as it was a battle between competing visions of both democracy and economics. The populists favored a strong government, not a limited one, in which political power and the instruments of power would be leveraged in favor of diseconomies of scale and whether the cornerstone of wealth and economic exchange was land and labor or capital and investment. The populists, as such, were highly reactionary. Furthermore, the populists clamored for increased taxes upon the upperclasses to pay off the growing debt of the United States rather than forcing the burden onto the underclasses. The populist-progressive divide is often mythologized by America’s lack of understanding authentic political philosophy and substituting philosophy for ideology.

The progressives, as I shall cover in greater detail, on the other hand, believed in the supremacy of the corporate class and the primacy of capital over labor. The battle between “left” and “right” progressives is really the battle between classical liberals and modern liberals; those who believed the best mechanism for individual choice and economic well-being is provided by the economic market supported by the state which acts as the modus vivendi to provide a peaceful life, or whether the state is the best mechanism to enhance individual choice and material well-being. The issue of social liberalism, too, follows classical liberal principles and is simply adjusted to adapt to the realities of an urbanized and industrialized society where social problems: poor education, poverty, and segregation, etc., serve as impediments to individual liberty and the solution to these social impediments to individual liberty is a strong state involved in social matters. Progressives of all stripes, whether found in the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, believed—and still believe—in the supremacy of the economy of scale and the primacy of capital in economic exchange and human action. They differ as to the means toward their end: increased individual choices in daily life and material comfort or well-being. Those who generally call themselves “socialist” in America are not, by any historical or classical standard, actually socialist.

The populists rejected the progressive outlook wholesale. The populists, in rejecting the economy of scale in favor of the diseconomy of scale, also favored the small over the large. This led to a natural aversion and distrust of large corporations that were “too big to fail.” Moreover, the populists rejected the primacy of capital in economic exchange and interaction; rather, they favored land and labor as the prime mover in economic life.

The divide between the populists and progressives—who emerged out of the capitalist and upperclasses in the east coast, and generally of Puritan lineage—was not simply rooted in the dialectic of Jefferson and Hamilton, but also the result of the Civil War. The destruction of the agrarian south, and the exhaustion of the agrarian northwest, led to farming shortages and problems which caused economic disturbances that coincided with industrialization. Industrialization, then, was seen as the answer to America’s economic downturn and cost of the Civil War. Farming and small-scale laboring could not pay off the debt incurred by the Civil War. And the extensive silver network also depreciated gold.

The Republicans, many of whom were old Whigs, waged a bloody civil war between its agrarian and populist wing and its “modernizing” old Whig wing. The Republican Radicals who triumphed in the Civil War soon found themselves on the losing side of the Republican shift in the 1870s and 1880s as the party coalesced around an ideology of economic industrialization—though rural Midwest and Great Plains Republicans stubbornly refused to assimilate to this “parasitic” ideology.

A train at Chicago’s Main Park Station. The Railroad had replaced the farm as the new source of economic growth and prosperity. Railroads soon dotted across the United States, and railroad barons used their power to stamp out opposition to their goals by leveraging the power of monopolized control over trade to essential starve farmers into submission and accept whatever rate of transportation railroad barons decided upon.​

Those who say “war is the health of the state” fail to pick up on the dynamics of the economics of war. War is always profitable to the moneyed and industrial classes but disastrous for the agrarian classes. For the farmer, war takes him away from his land and unable to plant, till, and harvest—this is why for as long as wars were waged in agrarian economies armies campaigned during the summer season where crops grew and needed less tending than in the spring (planting and tilling) or fall (harvest). This motivated soldiers and armies to try and fight short but decisive wars. To limit the collateral damage to the land and the manpower needed to maintain a functioning economy was essential.

All of that changed with industrialization. This, of course, was first seen in the Napoleonic Wars when massed produced weapons and armies were already embodying the new mechanistic and industrial way of life. While agriculture was still the prevailing economic cornerstone in the early 1800s, there could be no doubt that industrialization and standards of mass production foreshadowed the change in warfare just like in economics.

Total War, as we have come to understand it, was a product of the industrial and modern economy. It represented the death of the agrarian economy, literally, and the transformation of an organic world into a sterile and mechanistic world born out of fire—also quite literally. That “war is the health of the state” only makes sense if the state exists within a modern industrialized economy which allows the state to more easily and effectively wage a perpetual war that was otherwise impossible under an agrarian economy.

The Civil War, then, represented a major turning point in American political, and economic, history. The losers were the majority of the population (farmers and small-scale laborers) and the winners were the minority of the population (industrialists, capitalists, bankers, and corporate industries). The transforming dynamic of American politics represented this change, with the losing majority venting its frustrations in a reactionary counter to so-called “progressive” advancement controlled by a privileged and lucky minority.

SUGGESTED READING:

Philip Bobbit, The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History

Marc Engel, Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War

Lawrence Goodwyn, The Populist Moment: A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America

Victor Davis Hanson, Agriculture and Warfare in Ancient Greece

Vernon Ruttan, Is War Necessary for Economic Growth?: Military Procurement and Technology Development​

 

[stnylan]

It is interesting to compare to the last century or so of the Roman republic, where warfare was so integral to the politics of the state.

 

[volksmarschall]

It is interesting to compare to the last century or so of the Roman republic, where warfare was so integral to the politics of the state.

You know, there's the obvious fact that the Roman State lost control over the "monopoly" of violence; but there's even more interesting work - I can think of W.G. Runciman's study of late Roman society, "Capitalism without Classes" where he argued that the late Roman Republican became the first capitalist society wherein capital replaced land as the main economic driving force for the Roman economy and this precipitated expansionist warfare as Rome moved from landed agrarian republic to commercial and expansionist imperium. Other philosophers and sociologists and economists have offered similar studies -- not always in a positive light mind you.

There was a time when I thought Roman studies was going to be my field; my first ever academic paper was on East Roman/Byzantine political symbolism and early Christian iconography in the Roman Empire and how it was inherited from Mesopotamian iconography and mythology. Long before the crescent moon was a symbol in Islam, it was a symbol going back to the Mesopotamian god Nanna-Sin, the god of shepherds and creator of all things who decreed the fate of persons after death. Christ flanked with the moon is the earliest iconography going back into the eastern churches meant to convey the same message. Alas, the ship, much like me being an Americanist, has sailed. Though some areas do have special places in my heart, and hundreds of books lining my make-shift library!

 

[J66185]

The famous NIMH study on rats by Dr. John Calhoun (indirectly subject of the wonderful children's book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH and the feature film "The Secret of NIMH") showed how the breakdown of social structures and basic social behaviorism of rats led to their extinction despite having plenty of food and nesting material and not yet overpopulating their spatial territory. Not mention the countless studies on other animals like apes, chimpanzees, and meercats all showcase the basic facts of biology and science that humans, apparently, don't want to acknowledge. In fact, I published an essay back in April poking fun at the "we believe in science" and "march for science" people because no--you don't actually believe or accept science that disagrees with your political ideology. Such people only accept the science of global warming while rejecting the science of biology and social behaviorism. The great man theory, whether people realize it or not, rejects -- metaphysically and ontologically -- the understanding of humans as social animals.

I just happen to have that book, though I didn't completely understand the background and I didn't realize that it was an actual experiment! However, I would like to see this 'higher journalism' and where you posted that essay out of curiosity's sake.

 

[Nathan Madien]

Those who generally call themselves “socialist” in America are not, by any historical or classical standard, actually socialist.

So Bernie Sanders isn't actually a socialist?

 

[J66185]

So Bernie Sanders isn't actually a socialist?

That has been already mentioned in his website and previous posts. I'd be happy enough to show the posts, but I all do know as of now, is that it is in his own forums.

 

[volksmarschall]

I just happen to have that book, though I didn't completely understand the background and I didn't realize that it was an actual experiment! However, I would like to see this 'higher journalism' and where you posted that essay out of curiosity's sake.

Well, the book isn't true to the experiments done by Dr. Calhoun, it merely takes the reality of rat testing done by the NIMH by Dr. Calhoun and spins it into children's fantasy of course. Of course, his experiment, which is something I would consider very prescient, in which the rats -- still having an abundance of food and home-making material, as well as space -- went extinct when their social structures and social behavior moved into a isolated, solitary, and hedonistic direction, not to mention a whole lot of other stuff that would get once excommunicated by so-called polite society. As someone who is equally a biological essentialist and determinist, I'm apparently guilty of certain crimes because "I believe science is real."

I don't share my work over the response mediums here. But among the journals or publications of the "higher journalism": Renovatio (general philosophy, classics, theology; Islamic preference), First Things (conservative, traditionalist Catholic preference) Imaginative Conservative (traditionalist conservative with a generally traditional Christian perspective that leans Catholic), Tablet (general-purpose Jewish with Orthodox leanings), Mosaic Magazine (history, philosophy, and culture from a broad Jewish perspective including Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and occasionally Hasidic; sadly not going to be free much longer), Jewish Review of Books (wonderful book review publication with cultural commentary), Commentary (neo-conservative with formerly Trotskyite roots; remains partial to orthodox Jewish concerns), Foreign Affairs (flagship liberal; social liberal which occasionally publishes alternative views), International Socialist Review (democratic socialist with revisionist Marxist leanings), World Socialist Web Site (orthodox Marxist). Many of the articles published here are rigorous philosophical, anthropological, theological, political, political philosophic, and literary writings. I've written in some of these publications and am subscribed to the ones that I need to be subscribed to in order to have full accessibility and you apparently came across one such essay of mine when doing a search for Brave New World. I wouldn't consider ISR or WSWS as publications of the higher journalism as they're pretty ideological and don't focus much on philosophy and the broader humanities, but they're genuine leftwing publications unlike many people who proclaim themselves "socialists" whom ISR and WSWS have written not so flattering critiques of. I read them because at least they don't conflate liberalism with socialism or Marxism like everyone in America does... There are also some more worthwhile daily newspapers and magazines that I frequent and contribute to but they're not necessarily higher journalism in the same sense as the aforementioned but are far and above superior to the "newspapers of record." No publication worth its salt tries to hide what "perspective" they publish from or favor - but these publications don't deliberately demean or misinform the public when using terms like "fascism" "God," "liberalism," or "conservatism," something which can't be said for much of modern media and internet web sites. Misinformation - from ignorance (bad enough) or deliberate intent (even worse) - is the real "fake news." So that makes about 95% of American media guilty of perpetuating fake news.

So Bernie Sanders isn't actually a socialist?

Does calling yourself a giraffe make you a giraffe? Socialism has a genus, specific philosophical underpinnings, and an understanding of economics that rejects the primacy of capital in human praxeology as it relates to economics. Sanders, from everything I've read and heard him say -- and the same goes for these "democratic socialists" popping up in certain wings of the Democratic Party -- does not fall into the socialist tradition. Rather, what Sanders and his ilk promote is nothing but a more leftward iteration of welfare liberalism which accepts the primacy of capital and the corporate but simply call for increased welfare measures for individuals to provide a life of solitary comfort and material well-being, concepts already found in the classical liberal fathers like Hobbes, Locke, and Spinoza. Sanders can easily be identifiable with the hyper progressive wing of social liberalism. To quote Aristotle, to speak falsely of that which is, is to speak falsely of it. So when Sanders says he's a socialist he speaks falsely of what socialism is. He does out of ignorance (most likely) or intentionally (which would be bad but I doubt it).

So no, as virtually all political philosophers and philosophers know, and have said, including Noam Chomsky, Sanders is not a socialist. He is a new New Deal Democrat. He may have been a socialist long ago, but he isn't today.

But cable news and newspapers and rag magazines like National Review, New Republic, or Atlantic (no offense if you happen to read one or more) don't like publish long pieces from professionals explaining and detailing the growth and divergences of political philosophy. Swift was right and Huxley too, our shallow consumeristic and entertainment (infotainment) culture really makes us dumber despite "high literacy" rates. People may know how to read but that doesn't mean they actually read. And in our busy body culture, spending 20 minutes to read an article or essay from someone who has spent thousands of hours of reading is next to impossible!

 

[99KingHigh]

Well, the book isn't true to the experiments done by Dr. Calhoun, it merely takes the reality of rat testing done by the NIMH by Dr. Calhoun and spins it into children's fantasy of course. Of course, his experiment, which is something I would consider very prescient, in which the rats -- still having an abundance of food and home-making material, as well as space -- went extinct when their social structures and social behavior moved into a isolated, solitary, and hedonistic direction, not to mention a whole lot of other stuff that would get once excommunicated by so-called polite society. As someone who is equally a biological essentialist and determinist, I'm apparently guilty of certain crimes because "I believe science is real."

I don't share my work over the response mediums here. But among the journals or publications of the "higher journalism": Renovatio (general philosophy, classics, theology; Islamic preference), First Things (conservative, traditionalist Catholic preference) Imaginative Conservative (traditionalist conservative with a generally traditional Christian perspective that leans Catholic), Tablet (general-purpose Jewish with Orthodox leanings), Mosaic Magazine (history, philosophy, and culture from a broad Jewish perspective including Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and occasionally Hasidic; sadly not going to be free much longer), Jewish Review of Books (wonderful book review publication with cultural commentary), Commentary (neo-conservative with formerly Trotskyite roots; remains partial to orthodox Jewish concerns), Foreign Affairs (flagship liberal; social liberal which occasionally publishes alternative views), International Socialist Review (democratic socialist with revisionist Marxist leanings), World Socialist Web Site (orthodox Marxist). Many of the articles published here are rigorous philosophical, anthropological, theological, political, political philosophic, and literary writings. I've written in some of these publications and am subscribed to the ones that I need to be subscribed to in order to have full accessibility and you apparently came across one such essay of mine when doing a search for Brave New World. I wouldn't consider ISR or WSWS as publications of the higher journalism as they're pretty ideological and don't focus much on philosophy and the broader humanities, but they're genuine leftwing publications unlike many people who proclaim themselves "socialists" whom ISR and WSWS have written not so flattering critiques of. I read them because at least they don't conflate liberalism with socialism or Marxism like everyone in America does... There are also some more worthwhile daily newspapers and magazines that I frequent and contribute to but they're not necessarily higher journalism in the same sense as the aforementioned but are far and above superior to the "newspapers of record." No publication worth its salt tries to hide what "perspective" they publish from or favor - but these publications don't deliberately demean or misinform the public when using terms like "fascism" "God," "liberalism," or "conservatism," something which can't be said for much of modern media and internet web sites. Misinformation - from ignorance (bad enough) or deliberate intent (even worse) - is the real "fake news." So that makes about 95% of American media guilty of perpetuating fake news.



Does calling yourself a giraffe make you a giraffe? Socialism has a genus, specific philosophical underpinnings, and an understanding of economics that rejects the primacy of capital in human praxeology as it relates to economics. Sanders, from everything I've read and heard him say -- and the same goes for these "democratic socialists" popping up in certain wings of the Democratic Party -- does not fall into the socialist tradition. Rather, what Sanders and his ilk promote is nothing but a more leftward iteration of welfare liberalism which accepts the primacy of capital and the corporate but simply call for increased welfare measures for individuals to provide a life of solitary comfort and material well-being, concepts already found in the classical liberal fathers like Hobbes, Locke, and Spinoza. Sanders can easily be identifiable with the hyper progressive wing of social liberalism. To quote Aristotle, to speak falsely of that which is, is to speak falsely of it. So when Sanders says he's a socialist he speaks falsely of what socialism is. He does out of ignorance (most likely) or intentionally (which would be bad but I doubt it).

So no, as virtually all political philosophers and philosophers know, and have said, including Noam Chomsky, Sanders is not a socialist. He is a new New Deal Democrat. He may have been a socialist long ago, but he isn't today.

But cable news and newspapers and rag magazines like National Review, New Republic, or Atlantic (no offense if you happen to read one or more) don't like publish long pieces from professionals explaining and detailing the growth and divergences of political philosophy. Swift was right and Huxley too, our shallow consumeristic and entertainment (infotainment) culture really makes us dumber despite "high literacy" rates. People may know how to read but that doesn't mean they actually read. And in our busy body culture, spending 20 minutes to read an article or essay from someone who has spent thousands of hours of reading is next to impossible!

You're shamefully missing The American Conservative.

 

[volksmarschall]

You're shamefully missing The American Conservative.

I read TAC somewhat regularly. However, I personally think they fall into a more intermediate ground as I don't particular find Rod Dreher deep or profound--certainly not in the same manner as other more theologically or religiously oriented writers for other publications, and a fair number of things they publish are nothing more than prototypical paleocon screeds with very little substance to them. From time to time they do publish exceedingly worthwhile pieces, and anything from Paul Gottfried there is certainly worth reading. Precisely because they are more "political" than concerned with the broader humanities, philosophy, or classics in their approach (though it is true I included FA, Comm., ISR, and WSWS) they are something of an in-betweener in my book. More like a high class paleocon version of the New Republic back when New Republic was actually worth reading.

TAC certainly isn't in the same league with Renovatio, FT, IC, Mosaic, JRB though. Not even Commentary, assuming Jonah Goldberg isn't in the TOC of the current edition. But that's because they're different publications. Anything by Patrick Deneen in TAC is worth reading too. He gave a wonderful keynote to their gala dinner. TAC is certainly on the right side, pun intended, of foreign affairs and the cost of empire to America's soul, Max Boot, and most TAC writers and contributors are aloof like most "classical liberals" (e.g. Dave Rubin) to the reality that statist encroachment is deeply planted in the writings of Locke.

Roger Scruton publishes there sometimes and I'll be studying under him very shortly.

 

[99KingHigh]

I read TAC somewhat regularly. However, I personally think they fall into a more intermediate ground as I don't particular find Rod Dreher deep or profound--certainly not in the same manner as other more theologically or religiously oriented writers for other publications, and a fair number of things they publish are nothing more than prototypical paleocon screeds with very little substance to them. From time to time they do publish exceedingly worthwhile pieces, and anything from Paul Gottfried there is certainly worth reading. Precisely because they are more "political" than concerned with the broader humanities, philosophy, or classics in their approach (though it is true I included FA, Comm., ISR, and WSWS) they are something of an in-betweener in my book. More like a high class paleocon version of the New Republic back when New Republic was actually worth reading.

TAC certainly isn't in the same league with Renovatio, FT, IC, Mosaic, JRB though. Not even Commentary, assuming Jonah Goldberg isn't in the TOC of the current edition. But that's because they're different publications. Anything by Patrick Deneen in TAC is worth reading too. He gave a wonderful keynote to their gala dinner. TAC is certainly on the right side, pun intended, of foreign affairs and the cost of empire to America's soul, Max Boot, and most TAC writers and contributors are aloof like most "classical liberals" (e.g. Dave Rubin) to the reality that statist encroachment is deeply planted in the writings of Locke.

Roger Scruton publishes there sometimes and I'll be studying under him very shortly.

No kidding, Roger Scruton is always a minor diety in our circles (and so is Gottfried, I suppose, featuring in a few of my recent essays). As for Commentary, even as a Jew, I think the neocon line is just terribly boring nowadays. There's just something about Max Boot's politics, as he clarified them in FP, that really boils my blood.

EDIT: It might also be said that Noam Chomsky isn't really the definitive authority on who is 'socialist' and who is not, seeing as his own beliefs aren't exactly what one might summarize as socialism.

 

[Random8k]

Just wanted to say I am very much enjoying this AAR! I'm a latecomer, so I'm still in the earlier sections, just now getting to the 1st Mexican-American War. I love reading about history, and I've been meaning to actually learn up more on my own home country, so this is a very informative read! So again, I thank you very much for providing this, and can't wait to catch up fully.

 

[volksmarschall]

EDIT: It might also be said that Noam Chomsky isn't really the definitive authority on who is 'socialist' and who is not, seeing as his own beliefs aren't exactly what one might summarize as socialism.

Chomsky doesn't consider himself to be a socialist but an anarchist. He, and virtually every educated philosopher and political philosopher worth their salt, knows that Sanders is not a socialist because he does not fall into the socialist tradition but the left-guard of the modern liberal tradition which itself grew out of the classical liberal tradition. Most people confuse socialism for a very generous liberal welfare state where the generosity of the state apparatus is conceived of as the main instrument to the individual's liberation (ability to choose and act with few impediments) and material well-being (freedom from harm) which are the two core principles of liberal thought running from Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, and Mill to the present. He certainly does not advocate workers' control of the means of production (classical) or even the nationalization of all sectors of the economy, apart from healthcare (revisionist). If he at least called for state control over the "commanding heights" of the economy then he could at least be described as some sort of confused revisionist.

That said, I voted for him in the D-primary for reasons I will not get into here.

Just wanted to say I am very much enjoying this AAR! I'm a latecomer, so I'm still in the earlier sections, just now getting to the 1st Mexican-American War. I love reading about history, and I've been meaning to actually learn up more on my own home country, so this is a very informative read! So again, I thank you very much for providing this, and can't wait to catch up fully.

Hello Random8k! I'm glad you dropped in to acknowledge your presence and that you are finding this AAR both enjoyable and historically informative! For my aim was to achieve exactly that. Perhaps you will, as time permits, also endeavor to read some of the "Suggested Readings" as I reference those to acknowledge where I'm drawing the historicity from.

I hope you have a great ride catching up--perhaps you will be able to do so somewhat sooner as other obligations have slowed down my pace of updating. And hopefully you will take great interest in some of the eras that get minimal treatment in most U.S. History books that I've tried to bring more attention and will continue to bring more attention to.

Cheers!

 

[99KingHigh]

That said, I voted for him in the D-primary for reasons I will not get into here.

To create a utopian world where the ghost of Senor de Santillán rules over spotted communes?

 

[J66185]

No joke Sherlock, and speaking of Sherlock, how is that one French forum in Victoria 2 going so far for you? It's a pretty nice ride even though we basically already went through that one war in Canada by now. And how does one manage to keep Mexico the punching bag of Uncle Sam in the grand scheme of all things?

 

[volksmarschall]

As we don’t really cover the presidents, and sometimes skip over some, here is the (first) list of presidents up to the present timeline being traversed at the moment of the AAR. This list/post will be added to the Table of Contents for easy referencing.


PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES

1. George Washington, 1789-1797, Independent
2. John Adams, 1797-1801, Federalist
3. Thomas Jefferson, 1801-1809, Republican* (Democratic-Republican)
4. James Madison, 1809-1817, D-R
5. James Monroe, 1817-1825, D-R
6. John Quincy Adams, 1825-1829, D-R
7. Andrew Jackson, 1829-1837, Democratic
8. Martin van Buren, 1837-1841, Democratic
9. Henry Clay, 1841-1845, Whig
10. James K. Polk, 1845-1849, Democratic
11. William R. King, 1849-1853, Democratic
12. Jefferson Davis, 1853-1857, Democratic
13. Stephen Douglas, 1857-1861, Democratic
14. John C. Fremont, 1861-1865, Republican
15. Abraham Lincoln, 1865-1870, Republican ✝Died in office
16. Ulysses S. Grant, 1870-1877, Republican
17. William Wheeler, 1877-1881, Republican
18. William Sherman, 1881-1885, Republican


*As mentioned in the AAR, the “Democratic-Republican” Party was actually named the Republican Party. The term “Democratic-Republican” or “Jeffersonian Republican” is an invention of historians to distinguish Jefferson’s “Republican” Party from the modern Republican Party formed in 1854.

 

[Specialist290]

You know, I had totally forgotten about William Wheeler, so far in the background is he. Is his relationship with Hayes in this world a simple case of transposition, or is Hayes out of the picture completely (at least politically)?

 

[J66185]

Wait, is just me or next to everyone has forgotten that *glares* William Walker and his infernal USCA?

 

[volksmarschall]

Shameless self-promotion - and no man is without petty hypocrisy - I've been hired as a senior contributor at one of the journals of higher criticism and journalism that happened to referenced in a previous post for a bimonthly (twice a month) column starting in October. My work there will generally be concerning the classics, philosophy, and literary criticism, will also focus on philosophical themes in cinema; some of you know this already about me. An essay on Homer and The Godfather (or an Jonathan Swift, Aldous Huxley, Leo Tolstoy and George Orwell) will be coming out to start. Who knows, maybe I'll write a large essay or article about John Steinbeck in the future!

As such I'm tied to more writing commitments than in the past and wish to forewarn readers here that I will naturally be slowing pace on this. I do not intend to abandon this AAR out of fidelity to William Jennings Bryan! but want to give all my readers a heads up as to why we may be entering (for the foreseeable future) a sporadic period of infrequent updating.

Thanks for your patience in advance.
~ volksmarschall