Living In The Past

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about how I spend much of my time in the past. Reading history will do that. Studying genealogy will expand it. Reading Romantic and Victorian Era writers will exacerbate it. When I get home at night my mind is geared towards times no closer than 50 years ago.

Last night I hosted an on-line, back-to-school party for my high school class. This was held at our class Facebook page (which I created). 25 people showed up, with about 15 of those contributing posts. That's out of a group membership of 106 out of a class of 725. So not a great attendance, but I think all who posted had a good time. We came from two different junior high schools to the same high school, so there was lots of cross-town rivalry stuff going on. Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the eve of our starting junior high (not really; we started the Wednesday after Labor Day, which in 1964 was Sept 8; but seeing as how today is the Wednesday after Labor Day, it was an anniversary of sorts).

That took a lot of time last night. As group creator and host, I felt I had to be there and contribute. By the end of the evening we had over 300 posts. Those who didn't contribute will some day stop in the page and see what we all said.

Then, I've been beta-reading/editing the memoir of a cousin of mine—a memoir of childhood. At least the first part is. I've read up to the teen years. I believe the latter half moves into the adult years, but for now it's all about events more than 50 years in the past. I know the people mentioned. I know some of the circumstances which this cousin has shared with me. But the details are new. I'm enjoying my reading; and I enjoy editing. Tonight I can spend enough time on it that I'll either finish it or get close.

My current reading has been of old works. I just finished my second reading of Thomas Carlyle's Chartism, in preparation for a publishing a book on the subject. Lynda and I, in our reading aloud, are reading through the Sherlock Holmes canon. So my reading is of things old. When I'm not reading those, I'm reading my Bible. Talk about old. Next, however, is a couple of magazines I bought last time I was in Barnes & Noble, so I'll be shifting to reading something modern. Plus I have some articles to read in a back-issue of a literary magazine, from several years back. Maybe this reading will tug me into the future.

The other thing that causes me to dwell in the past is my genealogy work. Ever since I've been writing creatively, genealogy has taken a backseat. Every now and then, when a relative contacts me, or I sense an urge, I do a little work on it. That's what's happened recently. Yesterday I took time to prepare two new family group sheets, based on new information, and to edit the one for my family. Two of these three are to present accurate information to a newly found relative; the other information about that relative. This reminded me of how much work I have to do. My genealogy notebooks are a mess. I have unproven information in them that is speculative enough that I need to trash it. I have trial family charts that I later updated, but haven't discarded the older versions. I need to spend hours doing nothing but that.

Then, the last month or so I've spent time with old photographs. I may have mentioned before that my house has become the accumulation point for old photographs from both my and my wife's families. We have them in boxes and bins. Some are labeled, some are not. None are inventoried. These go back to our great-grandparents, in some cases older than that. They are for five or six family branches. Some I know I have, but haven't seen them for years. Add to this are all the photographs Lynda and I have taken over the years. They are scattered throughout the house: in dresser drawers, in boxes, in albums that are incomplete and mostly not labeled.

Oh how I want to inventory our photos! Put them in a database that will: identify the photo and who or what is in it; identify who took it; indicate if a negative is available, and if so where the negative is; indicate the family branch it came from; identify or speculate on the date the photo was taken; state where the photo is in the house, including which album if it's in an album. Unfortunately, that task is so huge I don't think I'll get there this side of retirement, and perhaps not for twenty years into retirement, should I live so long.

So, right now I have my feet firmly planted in the past. Writing tasks await me. Writing is a current activity, though of course my Civil War book is of a past activity. Hopefully I'll come back to the present sometime soon. But for now, I'm enjoying my time machine.

So Far Away

A couple of days ago I heard the Carol King song "So Far Away" on the radio. It had been a while since I'd heard it—not years, but a while. This radio station does a nice mix of old and new. It's not exactly easy listening. They call themselves "variety radio". They play the types of songs that are easy on the ears, not head banger stuff. No Janis Joplin. Limited Jim Croce. Lots of Katie Melua, Colbie Callet (their slow, ballad like stuff). Good listening.

King's song brought back memories, but it also got me to thinking. "So Far Away" is in terms of distance, but I got to thinking about it in terms of time. The past is so far away, yet I live in the past. That's one of the consequences of studying genealogy and history. If' I'm not reading Revolutionary War documents I'm looking at old censuses. If I'm not reading about the great migration I'm looking at old family photos. The present usually gets in the way of the past.

Last night, when I was supposed to be writing, trying to get back to it after a couple of days of distractions, I made the mistake of clicking on a Facebook link for a doo-wop song I didn't know. It was a good song. Then, off to the side on that YouTube page were scores of links to other songs of the era. I clicked and I clicked and I clicked. What great music, what a good time.

Distractions of the last two days were all about the past, digging into unknown things, trying to figure out how they tie to the present. I don't know if they do. Or rather, I should say they do, but I don't know exactly how. It may be tightly tied or a little bit loosely tied, but tied somehow it is. Perhaps I'll be able to write more about it in a few weeks.

I just listened to "He's a Rebel", which caused me to think and dream about being a rebel, something I most definitely never was. I suppose though, if I try hard enough, I can make a claim that I was a rebel in that I wasn't a rebel when all the guys around me were rebels. If I stretch a little.

So what is this post about? Nostalgia, I guess. I long for the past. Hopefully someday I'll find it.

Happy VJ Day everyone.

America. What Would the World Be Like Without Her?

That is the question asked in D'Nesh D'Souza's latest film of that title. Lynda and I saw that in the theater a couple of weeks ago. He chose five items that are often criticisms for how the USA developed and carried itself in the world, and sought to answer those criticisms. The were such things as stealing the land from the native peoples, allowing slavery, having a capitalist system that steals wealth from people.

Recently, on Mike Huckabee's weekend program on the Fox News Channel, D'Souza was on opposite Richard Dreyfus to argue the merits of the film. It was an interesting segment. Dreyfus, who was on through a remote feed, had his arms crossed, showing body language that said he didn't want to be there. His two main points against the film were: 1) Americans aren't taught history and civics any more, and so there's no way to properly evaluation the merits of the film; and 2) D'Souza never answered the question about what the world would be like without America.

D'Souza, who was in-studio with Huckabee, had a generally more upbeat and open body language than Dreyfus. At first he ignored Dreyfus' charge that the movie didn't answer his own question. The second time Dreyfus said that, D'Souza said, "I'll answer it right now." He said that before the USA came into existence, nations advanced through what he calls the conquest epoch. They took territory by war, subjugated peoples, stole their land, enslaved them, and stole their wealth. America, however, established wealth building as the means for nations to advance. Slowly the nations of the world are coming around to this.

While enjoying the film, and being in general sympathy with it, I must agree with Dreyfus that the film didn't answer that quest, at least not directly and with a firm statement. It talked about the conquest epoch, and how the USA was the first nation to truly move away from it. The film did not, however, go on to state that this example was being copied by the world, or that if America had never formed the world would still be dominated by the conquest epoch.

I sort of sensed that was where D'Souza was going as I watched the movie. His concept of the conquest epoch had been on my mind lately. I thought of all the wars that were fought—are still being fought—in the world, for the gain of some nation at the loss of others. I thought back to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and the devastating consequences that has perpetrated on the world. I look at the break up of the Soviet Union, beginning about the same time, and how fighting continues in places such as the Ukraine and Chechnya. Now you have the fighting going on between Gaza and Israel, right next to where they Syrians are in a civil war, right next to Lebanon, which was war-torn for decades. It's the conquest epoch. People want to be free of something or someone, someone else doesn't want that to happen, and war results. I'm tired of war.

Given how much war there is in the world right now, at a supposedly civilized time, I wonder how well the USA is doing in being an example for the world.

"The Jefferson Lies" Pulled

As I drive home in the evenings, if I'm still en route after 6:05 p.m., I catch a few minutes of David Barton's Wallbuilders show. I'm generally sympathetic to what Barton believes, but listening to him describe it is often painful. Part of the problem is his speech pattern, where he cuts off his words as if he's in a hurry. That grinds on me. He says he swallows his words because he's from Texas. No, Mr. Barton. I've known many Texans, working with them and attending church with them. I've never heard a one of them swallow their words like you do. Don't blame your speech on Texas.

The latest controversy is his book The Jefferson Lies, which deals with what he considers revisionist history having been foisted on an unsuspecting population by generations of inaccurate historians. On August 9, 2012, the publisher, Thomas Nelson (a division of Harper Collins), pulled the book due to concerns about it's inaccuracies. The Internet is abuzz over this. I found what I consider to be a fair treatment of it at http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/19840.

I've been concerned about Barton. As I said I listen to him some and think I'm somewhat in agreement with his conclusions, but wonder how he could get to those conclusions based on his logic. Also, he has the view that we should base what type of country we are today on the type of country we were in the distant past. I don't know that I agree with him. So far I've not read any of his published books, nor even as much as a blog post of his.

I think the case for basing our current public policies and administration on biblical principles needs to be made afresh for each generation. They were good in the past? So what? Why are they good now? This is what Barton has failed to do in my listening to him. He needs to make the case that biblical conduct is superior to secular conduct. It was in 1776. It was in 1789. It was in 1861. And it is in 2012. Absent of that case being made, whatever our Founding Fathers believed is an important item to throw in the mix of other items, but is not definitive.

Taxation in the Federalist Papers

I'm reading a little in The Federalist Papers, that wonderful collection of essays written by three of our Founding Fathers in 1787-88. The purpose was to convince New York, a large and key state, to vote in favor of the Constitution, already written by the convention but not yet ratified by enough states to become the supreme law of the land. John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were the authors, though they were all published with the pen name of Publius.

I've read some of this in the past, especially when I was researching for Documenting America. At least two chapters in that were based on The Federalist Papers (without looking I can't remember how many chapters I finally decided on). And, I read a couple of them concerning the judiciary branch of government as I've been researching The Candy Store Generation.

My other objective in reading them is to participate in the book discussion group concerning them at Goodreads. I joined the history group at Goodreads for a couple of reasons. One, I like history—no, I love history. Two, I hope someday to be able to promote my own history related books there. But to do so without active participation is spamming. So, I'm participating in that book group towards both ends.

Federalist #34 is one of the current topics and, though I'm a little late to the party, I finally read the paper and made a couple of comments. I may make a couple more. Though the discussion there has moved on to other numbers of The Federalist Papers, discussion on prior threads is permissible.

In this one Alexander Hamilton is arguing in favor of the Constitution not including a division of taxing authority between the Feds and the States, excepting in the matter of import duties. His reasons for this are: 1) who knows what might happen in the future, so the Constitution needs to be flexible on this point; and 2) the revenue needs of the States will be small in proportion of the Feds, and any division will reserve so much revenue to the States that the Feds might not be able to raise enough in times of war.

These are interesting points, and I shall have to ponder them some more. For sure Hamilton was correct in his projection that the revenue needs at the Federal level far outstrip the needs at the State level. Here are some interesting quotes from the paper.

“As this leaves open to the States far the greatest part of the resources of the community, there can be no color for the assertion that they would not possess means as abundant as could be desired for the supply of their own wants, independent of all external control. That the field is sufficiently wide will more fully appear when we come to develop the inconsiderable share of the public expenses for which it will fall to the lot of the State governments to provide.”

“As to the line of separation between external and internal taxes, this would leave to the States, at a rough computation, the command of two thirds of the resources of the community to defray from a tenth to a twentieth part of its expenses; and to the Union one third of the resources of the community to defray from nine tenths to nineteen twentieths of its expenses.”
"To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquility would be to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character."

Was Hamilton a seer? He sure had it right about how the revenue needs of the Federal government would come to overpower the States, even though he couldn't possibly have foreseen we would eventually become a predominately urban society with a whole different set of needs from the rural society of his day.

I believe I will take a few minutes and write a chapter of a future Documenting America: Constitution Edition. This will make the most of current research, even if I don't get to that volume for several years.

The Stupidest Peace Treaty Ever?

Today is Veterans Day in the United States, formerly known as Armistice Day. That was the day World War 1 ended, November 11, 1918. Germany asked for an armistice from the allied powers; the terms were acceptable; and they signed it in a railroad car in Sedan, France. Eventually World War 2 eclipsed WW1 in terms of destruction, carnage, loss of life, length of fighting, and historical emphasis. WW1 slipped to minor emphasis in our history textbooks.

I've thought a lot about that war over the last ten years or so. Every now and then I pick up a book that has something in it about that war; or I brainstorm something I could write myself. At the moment I'm reading Mr. Baruch, and as coincidence would have it just last night I finished reading about his industrial board duties during WW1 and began reading about the Paris peace conference and his role in that.

The Paris peace conference. This is something I need to read more about, much more about. But I have in my ideas file a book to write about it. I might title the book The Stupidest Peace Treaty Ever. My reading on it so far is limited. I base my statements on the aftermath of the treaty. It is now close to 90 years old, and yet we still are picking up the pieces of the mistakes made.

Just look at how the map of the world changed, and how later wars were fought--and may yet be fought--over the idiotic borders. Yugoslavia was shear idiocy; the Iraq and Iran borders were madness; and the failure to provide an independent Kurdistan a major mistake. The draconian terms forced on Germany may well have led to the rise of Hitler. Historians disagree on this, of course, but I don't think it can be eliminated as a contributing cause, whether or not it was the main cause. The war in Yugoslavia and eventual breakup of that nation was one aftermath, about 70 years after. The Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 may have been a result of this. The Nato action in Kosovo in the 1990s might have been related.

As I say, I have much research to do. This book may be pie-in-the-sky stuff, something an historian should do, not an amateur writer. But it's fun to think about. Something to research in bits and pieces through the years, and to plan for retirement, which is only 7 years, 1 month, and 19 days away. No, wait, what was that news story over the last couple of days? The retirement age may go to 68? Better re-calculate.