Studying History: Why and How

Greetings PHR readers!  I know it’s been a while.  PHR has had to take a back seat to other professional priorities, like my new HistoryThroughArt program for adults, and my expanded HistoryAtOurHouse product line for homeschoolers, which now includes a high school level that is also perfect for adult learners.  I have been writing, however, and I’m sure you’ll enjoy these two essays, published in Secular Homeschooling magazine that offer guidance on the study of history.  PHR will resume something like “normal service” at some point.

Why History?, from “Secular Homeschooling,” Issue 4

From the article:

…Historical-mindedness is the ability to engage the past as a productive aspect of living in the present. It is the capacity to draw on history as an intellectual resource for living.

There is a big difference between having such a capacity and merely knowing a lot of facts. The most brilliant people are not those who retain everything, but those who have the instinctive ability to discard anything that isn’t relevant.

Regarding history, the real power lies not in piling up more facts, but in being able to see relationships between them. When one can grasp fundamental similarities between past and present, despite circumstantial differences, one can learn and apply the “lessons of history,” i.e. the principles applicable to all human life. If one can grasp the connection between the actions of people in the past, and the world that those actions produced, one can develop a proper appreciation for the man-made values around us… (read more)

The Importance of Memorizing History, from “Secular Homeschooling,” Issue 8

From the article:

…Memorization — the act of committing information to memory, so that it can later be recalled without referring to an external source — is crucial to all learning, including the creation of a useful body of historical knowledge. The purpose of memorizing facts in any area is to automatize foundational knowledge, and thereby to automate thinking… (read more)

The Power of History and Art Combined

Through the HistoryThroughArt program, you’ll learn to see history in a new way by combining the abstract lessons of history with the visual power of art!

Aren’t you tired of history books that bombard you with too many facts? Having trouble seeing the “big picture”? Are you convinced that understanding history is just not something you can do as an adult? If you’re like me, you had a terrible history education. (Who among us actually liked history in high school? Who among us learned anything of value?!)

After graduating from college, I started to really learn history for myself. I had to…I was teaching it! I already had a love of art as well, and these two passions slowly came together. For the past three years, I’ve been using art to enjoy history even more and to help my homeschooling students across the country better understand history as part of the HistoryAtOurHouse curriculum.

The verdict is in. Students and parents agree: it’s awesome! Art really helps bring the past to life. In fact, it has worked so well, I decided to pass on the the unique benefits of this program to adults.

Why learn history through art?

History is about the past. As obvious as that is, to recognize this simple fact helps us to understand why history can be so difficult to learn. There’s no way to experience history directly. The only way to learn about the past is to read about it. As engaging as some writers can be, it still takes a ton of reading to piece together the story of the past. Even if you’re willing to make that effort, and even if you are able to assimilate all of history’s stories, what you’re left with in the end is a lot of abstract information that isn’t easy to connect to your life here and now.

That’s where art can help.

Art has the ability to show us the past in visual form. Simply put, art lets us see history. In some ways, art can function much like photography and film do today. But art can also do so much more than document history. As we’ll see throughout this course, art can represent much more than just a moment in time. It can depict the meaning of history.

This is where the power of art can transform our awareness of history. The value of history lies not in its myriad facts, but in their meaning. In most instances, however, the meaning of events is the most difficult thing to grasp of all. After you’ve performed the research, you still need to do a lot of difficult thinking. Although there are no short cuts or “quick fixes” when it comes to this challenge, there are tools for facilitating the process. Art is one such tool. Through art we can see history’s meaning.

It’s a cliche, but it’s true: a picture really is worth a thousand words! In fact, when it comes to history, a picture–if it’s a great work of art–might be worth a lot more than that!

Program Details

History Through Art for Adults will operate in the same way as A First History for AdultsTM. The program will operate on a three-year rotation: Ancient, European, and American history. This year, the program will focus on European history. Students will have two options for attending: live lectures, via conference-call and/or on-line recordings. The program will run from September to June, with two seminars per month. That’s 20 lectures in all! Classes start September 2nd! Each interactive seminar will last 1 hour to 1.5 hours. Students will receive images and links via a dedicated class web page. Live classes will be held Wednesday evenings at 8:30 PM Central Time (9:30 PM Eastern, 6:30 PM Pacific), usually on the first and third Wednesday of the month. All lectures will be recorded and made available indefinitely for listeners to download for repeat listening. In every lecture, you’ll get an essentialized history lesson to help you learn the story or recapture the context. Then we will examine works of art that help us visualize the characters and events–and that help us grasp and retain the meaning of the story. Every lesson will combine the power of history and art! Can’t attend Wednesday nights? You can listen to the lectures on-line, anytime. Lectures can easily be downloaded to an iPod or other portable player. You can listen as many times as you like. Like A First History for AdultsTM classes, History Through Art for Adults classes are recorded. Program Cost History Through Art for Adults is available for only $20/month! That’s less than the price of a movie per lecture! (And it’s better art!) You can listen as many times as you like, at no extra charge. Click here for a tuition discount. Pay in advance, and get one month free! Want to try it, before you buy the whole course? Click here, and select a single month of lectures.

The HistoryThroughArt program has been one of the most successful components of the HistoryAtOurHouse homeschooling curriculum of Powell History.  Combined with the unique pedagogical methods of A First History for Adults^TM, I’m certain that you will be amazed by how much you enjoy learning history!  Explore your registration options here.

Ranking America’s Presidents: The “Punters”

In opening post for this series I indicated what I would use as the two fundamental yardsticks for the ranking of presidents. The first was foreign policy, with principled national self-interest as the ideal and standard of measurement. The second was domestic policy, with respect for the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness serving as the standard of judgment.

The challenge in asserting and using such a standard is that it embodies truths only ever clearly enunciated by philosopher Ayn Rand in the twentieth century. It is thus all too easy to take such a standard and apply it anachronistically.

In particular, when judging American presidents, one must respect the fact that a president is  not a philosopher. It is not a president’s job to discover and validate fundamental truths about the “human condition.” I would characterize a president’s job as that of an intellectual technologist, whose responsibility it is to apply the best political principles available to him in the cultural context of his era in the act of governance. To be qualified for such a position, a president should be appraised of fundamental philosophy as well as its cognate fields in the humanities, especially history, law, political science and economics. In particular, he must be fluent in the particular application of the principles derived from these disciplines in the constitutional apparatus that defines his purpose and legitimate activities.

For an American president, this consists in the very least of a strong grasp of the political philosophy of John Locke and the Founding Fathers, but should also include an awareness of the works of other thinkers of note, such as Montesquieu and William Blackstone, ultimately going back to Plato & Aristotle. In terms of historical knowledge, I would also say that no president would be qualified for the post without a working knowledge of the history of the Ancient Greek city-states, the Roman republic, and the British constitutional monarchy.

Of course, as an intellectual, a president would also have the responsibility of monitoring the “state of the art” in each of these major fields and working with other intellectuals to determine if and how new developments should be integrated with previously accepted principles, and–where applicable–they might contradict and supercede already accepted views.

It is with considerations such as these in mind that I generally rate the presidents after Monroe less and less highly. As national leaders they by and large defaulted on their responsibility as intellectuals, resulting in an almost continual decline in the American republic.

As for the group I call the “punters”, the intellectual challenge they faced, in a word, was slavery. Once the threat of expanding European colonization in the Americas had dissipated–on a practical level, it was settled by British acquiescence to the Monroe Doctrine–every passing decade, every 100,000 square mile expansion of territory, and every million increase in the population shifted the political landscape away from the question of independence. By the mid nineteenth century, there can be no arguing that America had become a viable independent state. At the same time, the intellectual landscape of Western civilization was shifting. The evil of slavery was finally being recognized. Britain had adapted to this change, and was leading the charge to abolish slavery worldwide. In America the abolitionist movement grew stronger with every passing year. In light of these developments, it became the fundamental obligation of every president to address the incompatibility of slavery with the principles of individual rights and to establish a program for eradicating the former in order to fully embrace the latter.

Which is not to say it would have been easy, but as the expression goes, “If you can’t stand the heat…”  A proper president would have had to find a way to be a conciliatory moral leader–like Lincoln managed to be during the Civil War.  That was the job, and the “punters” basically failed at it.

On the other hand, it was not the responsibility of the presidents of this era to ferret out all the problematic premises that permeated the evolving political-economic framework known as mercantilism. This was the responsibility of professional philosophers, historians, political scientists and economists, who should have passed on their insights to the politicians. Without strong moral and economic alternatives to contradict the nationalist/protectionist concepts in mercantilism, its continuation and even its metastasis was inevitable. It took the intellect of Adam Smith to begin to break down this perspective, with the later contributions of the Austrian school of economics helping to create a complete scientific alternative, and it took until the twentieth century for philosopher Ayn Rand to identity the moral truths embodied in free trade.

For this reason I do not judge presidents of the nineteenth century primarily for their views on such issues as central banking, tariffs, or “internal improvements.” To the extent, for instance, that presidents promoted the establishment or expansion of a national bank or of other rights-violating instruments of the department of the treasury, they were wrong. But what were their options? The Agrarians of the Jeffersonian era and the so-called “states-rights” advocates who pragmatically supported “free trade” offered no real alternatives. The so-called supporters of “states rights” were all defenders of slavery, which makes the use of the term “free trade” a terrible perversion. They only wanted open trade with Britain in order to perpetuate an unjust social system. There was no virtue in it.

The pressing problem of the Era of the Growth and Decline of the Union that required presidential leadership, but instead met with default and evasion, was slavery. Every year that passed made this point clearer, and every time that presidents “punted” on this issue only made the situation worse.  Consequently, one might be inclined to say that the difficulty level of each successive presidency got higher as the nineteenth century unfolded, and that this should be taken into account when judging the presidents in question.  However, the issue is moot, because not one of the presidents in question ever did anything particularly impressive that would allow someone who is ranking them to even consider how hard it was for them to do the right thing.

So here’s my quick run down of what the “punters” did, and how I rank them:

John Quincy Adams (one term: 1825-29)
Rank Among Punters: 1st (out of 10) — overall rank: pending

Adams was the only president of this era who was unequivocally opposed to slavery.  For this reason he automatically gets the first rank.  He also gets the first rank for his non-presidental activity, re: his key role in the formulation of the Monroe Doctrine.  Unfortunately, his presidency was dominated by factional strife over the the 1824, which he won despite not winning the popular vote.

Andrew Jackson (two terms: 1829-1837)
Rank Among Punters: 2nd (out of 10) — overall rank: pending

I don’t want to like Jackson, because of his attacks on John Quincy Adams over the 1824 election, but I can’t help myself because he stood up to John C. Calhoun in the nullification crisis.  Jackson’s willingness to send troops into South Carolina forced it to back down over the tariff (i.e. its slavery-related trade complaints) for a brief time.  Sadly, Jackson was not the kind of president who could follow through and begin work to dismantle slavery.  Indeed, he even attempted to stifle the growing tide of anti-slavery publications, including by allowing his postmaster general to prevent anti-slavery publications from being distributed via the mail in the South.

Martin Van Buren (one term: 1837-41)
Rank Among Punters: 3rd (out of 10) — overall rank: pending

The overriding crisis that dominated the president of Martin Van Buren, and which arguably excuses him from having taken a more active role to begin dismantling slavery was the Panic of 1837 and the economic depression that followed.  In this difficult context, Van Buren refused to great deal of pressure to alter the economic course of the country by government power by some kind of “stimulus plan.”  Van Buren had previously voted against the admission of Missouri into the Union as a slave state.  Had he served under different circumstances, he might have done more, but because he stood on principle, he (like John Quincy Adams) was willing to be unpopular, he was not re-elected.

William Henry Harrison (one month, 1841)
Rank Among Punters: 4th (out of 10) — overall rank: pending

There is no way to rank Harrison.  He was president for a month.  Giving him the benefit of the doubt means putting him in the middle between the better presidents of this era–Adams, Jackson, and Van Buren–and the bad ones.  Speaking of which…

John Tyler (one term: 1841-45)
Rank Among Punters: 5th (out of 10) — overall rank: pending

John Tyler was a follower of slavery and states rights advocate John C. Calhoun, which is enough to condemn him in my book.  He favored the annexation of Texas, which according to Calhoun would “uphold the interests of slavery, extend its influence, and secure its permanent duration.”  Thankfully Calhoun was wrong, but it’s the thought that counts.  When the Senate refused to annex Texas, Tyler lobbied for a joint resolution to incorporate the new state into the nation without a formal treaty.

James Polk (one term: 1845-49)
Rank Among Punters: 6th (out of 10) — overall rank: pending

When Polk entered office, the annexation of Texas was a “fait accompli.”  His job was to try to settle the boundary disputes with Mexico in a civilized way and find ways to carve up Texas to limit the growth of slavery–that is, if he intended to be a leader among men.  Whether diplomacy could have worked with Mexico in this context is arguable.  Eventually it became clear that Mexico’s intransigence would have to be met by force, and Polk’s presence in the White House at a time when America’s soldiers performed so admirably seems to rub off on his reputation, though probably undeservedly.  Obviously, he deserves no credit for the entry of California into the Union as a free state.

Zachary Taylor (partial term: 1849-50)
Rank Among Punters: 7th (out of 10) — overall rank: pending

A soldier, with no particular intellectual qualifications, Taylor opposed the expansion of slavery and the idea of states rights on non-essential grounds.  I rate Taylor, and all presidents of this time forward even lower than Tyler and Polk because of what was possible, as evidenced by the standard set by statesman William Seward.  For my money, Seward was the best man in America (including Lincoln) up to and after the Civil War.  He was against the expansion of slavery at every turn, explaining,  “All measures which fortify slavery or extend it, tend to the consummation of violence; all that check its extension and abate its strength, tend to its peaceful extirpation.”  Taylor on the other hand coasted along as a slave holder until he died, showing no evidence of moral leadership when others, like Seward, certainly did.

Millard Fillmore (partial term: 1850-53)
Rank Among Punters: 8th (out of 10) — overall rank: pending

The antislavery question was now undeniably the driving question of American politics.  With California’s entry into the nation cutting off the possibility of a continued western expansion of slavery, the battleground over this institution shifted.  Since it couldn’t go west, the South now pressed for the expansion of slavery northward.  The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 showed that the Constitution, as it stood, would make the North directly complicit in slavery, no matter what moral objections were voiced by its people.  Fillmore, for his part, was an appeaser. He is quoted as saying “God knows that I detest slavery, but it is an existing evil… and we must endure it and give it such protection as is guaranteed by the Constitution.”

Franklin Pierce (one term: 1853-57)
Rank Among Punters: 9th (out of 10) — overall rank: pending

One of two “doughface” presidents (active Northern appeasers of Southern slavery).  Pierce favored the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which overturned the Missouri Compromise, and thus would make possible the further expansion of slavery northward.  Pierce also voiced his support for the Confederacy during the Civil War.  I can’t think of anything good to say about him.

James Buchanan (one term: 1857-61)
Rank Among Punters: 10th (out of 10) — overall rank: pending

The worst “doughface” in American history. Buchanan advised admitting Kansas as a slave state, even against the principle of “popular sovereignty” upon which the Kansas-Nebraska Act was based. In other words, he was one worse than Pierce.  He was also zealous in trying to obtain more slave territory from Mexico, and to obtain Cuba for slavery as well.  Easily the worst president before the twentieth century.

Ranking the Founding Presidents

In tackling the question of presidential rankings for just the Founding presidents I came to realize what an incredibly difficult thing it is to sort out even this small group, let alone all forty-three presidents so far.  With this group, the act of putting one person above another feels like an injustice to the one who is relegated to the next rank.  It’s such an amazing set of men that I almost feel like throwing my hands in the air and announcing a five-way tie!  But where would be the fun in that?!  I guess, no matter which way I rank ‘em, someone’s going to disagree, and that’ll be half the fun, so here goes…

1. George Washington (two terms: 1789-1797)

“First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.” — Henry Lee

Was there really any doubt?

Perhaps. If the question was: who is the greatest “Founding Father” then the issue would actually be more difficult, because that historical concept involves measuring a broader range of contributions to the founding of the United States. Given the importance of founding principles to a new nation, it would be hard to dispute placing Thomas Jefferson at the top of such a list, with John Adams and James Madison as close runners-up, but when it comes to a presidential ranking, then the honor of the highest rank must go to Washington.

To understand what Washington means to the United States as its first president, one must measure his accomplishment as the unifying figure of the Founding Era against the backdrop of The Critical Period that preceded it. I don’t think it can be overstated that there was no United States before Washington, and likely never would have been one without him. Historically-minded intellectuals like Jefferson and Adams might have understood the perils of disunity, as so tragically exemplified by the fate of the city-states of Ancient Greece, but no individual other than Washington had earned the kind of honor among men that overawes all factionalism and inspires them to embrace a  new national hope.

Concerning the policies he adopted as president, I think a couple deserve special mention for their salutary character.  Those are the Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793 and the Jay Treaty of 1795.   The former has generally been viewed positively, but the latter was not well-received.  Nonetheless, it also helped prevent the newly born United States from getting engulfed in wars that were of no essential connection to its national interest.  It was one thing for Americans to repel a poorly-executed attempt to stifle a Revolution, it was another altogether for a young nation to withstand an onslaught from the world’s most powerful empire while its national institutions were still in an embryonic state.  In principle, Washington advised in his Farewell Address that “the great rule of conduct for…” the United States “…in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.”  This crucial idea made its way into the Monroe Doctrine, which became the statement of American foreign policy of the Nineteenth century.

2. Thomas Jefferson (two terms: 1801-1809)

Jefferson’s epipath, written by him, reads “Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and father of the University of Virginia.” Not a word more, as he would have it.  Thus, evidently, no mention of his two-term presidency from 1801-09. So how could I possibly rank him 2nd in the Powell History list?  In this case, I think it should be evident that it’s because Jefferson’s presidency is a chapter–and a basically positive one–in a career as the greatest Founding Father of the United States.

Jefferson continued to steer the new nation with its self-interest as his guiding star as its third president.  His most notable accomplishment in that area was his leadership in the war against the Barbary Pirates.  Another key action, motivated by American self-interest was the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, which may have been difficult to justify as a government property purchase, but which Jefferson recognized as a necessary action to keep Europe’s powers out of North America. Usually the Embargo Act of 1807 is held as a strike against Jefferson because of its economic costs to Americans, but this is also a difficult measure to judge, and one that had national security implications.  Jefferson, like all the Founding Presidents had extremely limited resources and was concerned above all with the successful creation of a new nation.  In that context, the government had to do something to stand up for Americans’ rights (re: the impressment of Americans by the British navy), but war with Europe’s great powers was to be avoid at nearly all costs.

The incomparably positive value that Jefferson transmitted to American culture was secularism in government.  As Jefferson one wrote, “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”  He and Madison helped instill these premises in the national government, and that they have endured to this day is a legacy to them.

3. James Madison (two terms: 1809-1817)

The father of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, architect of the brilliant system of “checks and balances” that is the American government, and contributing author of the Federalist Papers, Madison is obviously a key Founding Father.

His place among the greatest American presidents is secured largely by his willingness to go to war against Great Britain, the superpower of the Nineteenth century, while America was still barely on its feet.  Up to 1812, Madison had preferred to avoid war, and he had supported the Embargo Act as Jefferson’s Secretary of State. Trying to stay neutral while France and Britain–nations that Jefferson said “feel power and forget right”–ran a muck, was a torturous task.  Historians have tended to view Madison’s decision to go to war with Britain over impressments as a terrible mistake, because of the immediate costs.   I think that it can only be properly evaluated in the light of the long term consequences of the decision, which were that America earned the grudging respect of Britain and Europe’s powers by standing up for itself.  The idea that America would defend its citizens’ rights was put to the test, and its President showed that the young nation would defy anyone.

4. James Monroe (two terms: 1817-1825)

After America proved capable of weathering the War of 1812, the “Era of Good Feelings” set in.  The Democratic-Republican party of Jefferson and Madison continued to dominate the federal scene with James Monroe as its new leader.

Monroe was the last president who had a direct connection to the American Revolution.  He had served in Washington’s army, and received a special commendation for his role in the Battle of Trenton after the famous crossing of the Delaware.

Two issues dominate the consideration of Monroe’s presidency.  First, the domestic question of slavery, and temporary avoidance of a crisis relating to that issue through the Missouri Compromise of 1820.  Second, the ongoing foreign policy problem of dealing with Europe’s imperial powers, which was resolved by the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. If it were not for the former, I might be tempted to have Monroe even higher in the rankings, and it is because of the latter that I cannot put him any lower.

The Missouri Compromise, which perpetuated slavery by allowing it to expand westward, was not initiated by Monroe and can’t be characterized as a presidential policy. Nonetheless Monroe did not have any better idea, and he didn’t use his presidential powers to veto it.  The Compromise is a measure of the culture of the time.  It reflects the continuing obsession with national unity–which was entirely justified up to that point–but also the failure to jettison slavery as a European inheritance.  There is no question that it’s a black mark on Monroe’s presidency, but I challenge anyone to come up with a viable solution to the problem that isn’t premised on an anachronistic application of modern philosophical principles to the context of the times.

What I do know about Monroe is that he understood that America must pursue its own self-interest in its foreign relations, and he did bequeath to the country an inestimable value in the Monroe Doctrine.  This enunciation of the president’s views defied Europe to expand its colonial presence in the Americas, and asserted that America would stand up for itself if threatened.  It identified that the American government and its founding premises were unique and antithetical to those of Europe’s and thus that the United States must view European expansion in the Americas as a threat to its national security.  The Monroe Doctrine was a proud and principled assertion of rational self-interest which set the tone for America’s foreign policy for the rest of the Nineteenth century.

5. John Adams (one term: 1797-1801)

Again, if I were to rank “Founding Fathers” I would have John Adams 3rd or 4th, because of his intellectual contribution to the Founding, but of all the Founders, I think he was least temperamentally suited to be president. His obsession with getting the respect he deserved drove him to problematic policies.

I do, however, fundamentally agree with John Adams own estimate of his presidency.  “When I am dead,” he said, “write on my tomb, ‘Here lies John Adams, who took upon himself the responsibility of peace with France.’” He felt that he could have no better epitaph.  This reflects a fundamental truth about the Founding Era, which is that the essential problem facing the Founders was how to secure independence. It was one thing to declare it.  It was another to win it.  It was altogether a different–and indeed, greater–challenge to keep it.   For Adams, the harsh reality was that the United States could not afford a war with France, and thus he had to find ways to stand up for Americans’ rights while avoiding this outcome.  The “Quasi-War” was the temporary expediency he adopted. In the long run, Adams understood that America would have to be able to defend itself, and he pushed for the creation of a navy to make that possible.

The black mark on Adams’s record are the “Alien and Sedition Acts,” of which the Sedition Act was the most pernicious.  It made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government.  In the context of the threat of war with France and the invectives being leveled against him for his foreign policies, Adams believed he has sufficient cause to place restrictions on free speech.  Jefferson didn’t agree, and I can’t see it either, but I still rate Adams highly as an intellectual defender of rights, and he deserves special mention as a Founding Father who never owned a slave, so he definitely stays in the top five.

So this is how I rank the Founding presidents against each other.  This is also where I rank them overall.   Their work, measured against the standard of individual rights, is the most heroic labor of any generation of politicians in world history.  Although it must be admitted that they were unable to jettison the legacy of slavery which America inherited from the Old World, they created the intellectual foundations for a society of individual rights in which, ultimately, slavery could not be sustained.  Thus, although they belonged to an era marked by a terrible flaw, they were distinguished as unparalleled promoters of rights within that era.

America’s Presidents: Introducing The Powell History Rankings

A Better Mt. Rushmore

Everybody has fun with this one, so I decided to try to come up with a complete set of Powell History rankings for America’s Presidents so far, not including Obama.  (I know where I expect him to end up, but I’ll let him prove me right over time.)

Coming up with a complete set of rankings is not an easy task, so I decided to start with some groupings, just to get a preliminary sense of where I’d have everybody.  The groups don’t necessarily indicate what a president’s final ranking will be.  They are more periodized, i.e. chronological, than anything, although I find that they help me to achieve greater clarity, as any good conceptual framework does.

I know, for instance, that I’d have the first five presidents as my top five–though I don’t have a definitive order for them just yet.

Group 1: Founders

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe

I also know for certain that there are certain Twentieth century “unforgivables” that I would put at the bottom of my rankings.  Again, I’m not sure the exact order I’d have them in just yet.  Sadly, there are twice as many of these as there are presidents that I love.

Group 2: Unforgivables

Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton

The middle, of course, is the hardest to sort out, but to organize it somewhat I’ve got the following groups:

Group 3: The Punters

JQ Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, and Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan

Punters? One of my students called them this.  These are all the presidents who, following the Founding Era, had to deal with the issue of slavery, but decided to “punt.”

Group 4: Lincoln

A category all by himself.  For most people, an easy one.  For most Objectivists, not so easy.  For me, easy. 

Group 5: The Long Twentieth Century

Subgroup 5a: Reconstruction presidents: Johnson, Grant

Subgroup 5b: The “Mixed Bag” – Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, Cleveland (again), McKinley, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Truman, JFK, Ford, Reagan, and “W”

So, how am I going to work the detailed rankings?  Well, I’m going to apply a basic template that includes two primary metrics: foreign policy and domestic policy.  Foreign policy will be measured with American self-interest as the standard, and presidents’ ideas, intentions and results as the quanta.  Domestic policy will be measured with individual rights–to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness–as the standard.  This will include looking at whether a president advanced the cause of individual rights–are there any who did besides the Founders and Lincoln?–or how they damaged our rights by promoting or abetting the cause of statism.  Usually, of course, it’s a “mixed bag.”

This dual template will operate on a sliding scale to account for “level of difficulty.”  Obviously, you don’t get as many points for a presidential “one and a half somersault” as you do for an “armstand three and a half with a twist”.  (Of course, if you as the President forced the nation into an “armstand” when it could just as easily have been upright, then your points go down, even if you successfully maneuvered through whatever problem you created.)

In the event of a tie, then I’ll deploy other considerations, such as non-presidential activity.  For instance, if you wrote something like a Declaration of Independence, then you obviously get some pretty major bonus points.  If, on the other hand, you made a career of appeasing Islamic terrorism while in and out of office, then you drop even further.  (Nobel Peace prizes will not figure prominently in these rankings, unless they serve to illustrate a president’s commitment to internationalism–in which case, if necessary, they will certainly be used to reduce a president’s score.)

First up, in the next installment: sorting out the Founders.  Let the hand wringing begin!

FRS: Healthy Energy for Intellectuals

I’m someone who regularly performs demanding intellectual work six days a week–sometimes seven–for upwards of ten hours a day.

My daily routine generally looks like this:  I work at home, so once I’ve watched a little morning news–Sportscenter, that is–my work day starts at around 5:30 AM. That gives me a three to four hour head start on my son, who is a great sleeper, but then he wakes up and forces me (quite happily, I must add) to take a morning break.  After his breakfast, I turn him over to mom, and it’s back to work for me.

Another hour of reading and research and lecture prep are followed by a couple hours of classes–I teach “distance learning” programs from home–and another hour of some administrative work and I’m ready for lunch.  By this point, I’ve already put in a seven hour work day.

Then, after lunch and a little play time my son goes down for his two to three-hour nap (bless his soul!) and it’s back to work for me.  On days when my wife is home from work and she can take care of him, that can mean until 7:00 PM, if I’ve got enough in the tank.  If not, then I get off at 5:00 PM, like most other folks.  So I usually put in a ten hour day.  And at least once a week it’s more like 12-14 hours.  Some days, I even deliver an evening lecture until 10:00 PM!

I don’t mind admitting that to maintain this schedule I ingest a fair amount of coffee and (sugar-free) Red Bull.  But there’s a limit to how much of Java I can drink without it being unhealthy.  (Quite a few would argue that the 2-3 cups I drink daily are already too much, but I don’t see them trying to do what I’m doing.)  I find that Red Bull or Sugar-Free Monster–both are acquired tastes, to be sure–do provide some variety and a good kick, when you don’t want any more coffee.

Still, there’s only so much of the “hard stuff” you can take without it making you jittery and intellectually unproductive.  If you’re going for a hard work out and you need a jolt, then an energy drink can help you pump out a few extra reps, but too many caffeine-based stimulants just don’t help you think.  At a certain point, no amount of it helps because you’ve reached a certain kind of fatigue that can’t be overcome, except by taking a nap or otherwise resting.

Or so I thought, until I tried FRS Healthy Energy, which is being touted by Lance Armstrong as part of his comeback regimen as a professional cyclist.  FRS does have caffeine, but very little compared to a typical energy drink.  The energy boost that it provides comes from its patented blend of antioxidants, including the magical substance Quercetin.

What is so great about FRS is that it doesn’t help you pretend you’re not tired, it actually fights the cellular damage that’s making you tired.  So when you take it, you’re actually giving your body a shot of vitamin goodness and other healthful stuff, not more “battery acid” that just makes you more tired in the end.  Although FRS–like almost all energy products–is promoted for athletes, it is the closest thing I’ve experienced to actual “brain juice.”

My favorite FRS product is the Pomegranate-Blueberry Chews, although they also come in Orange and Lemon-Lime.  The chews are a good bang for your buck, compared to the other forms of the product.  I also like the low cal Berry-flavored drink, but it’s more expensive.  It also comes in concentrates and powders, which might be the most economical option. (I haven’t run the numbers.)

If, like me, you put your mind through the kind of regular workouts that Lance Armstrong puts his body through, then FRS may just be the greatest supplement you ever take! Give it a try, and let me know.

It’s the Thought That Counts

Death to all Juice?  No it’s not a rally against poor nutritional choices. 

The Powell History Person of the Year (2008)

Does getting yourself elected the president of the most important country in the world during a wave of world-wide economic upheavals and in an era of myriad international political crises make you the “Person of the Year”–considering in addition that you are the first black president in that same country, which has an otherwise incomparably glorious history of individual rights, but whose story is nonetheless stained by black slavery and racism–and considering that you promote a conciliatory policy with fundamentalist Islamic leaders whose essential philosophy is wholly antithetical to everything America stands for–and that you are a dedicated socialist who will take the freest country in the world and push it further towards being just one more “people’s state”–and finally, that your election signals that modern-day Americans believe that all the above is change they can believe in?

Yes. It does.

Barack Obama is Powell History’s “Person of the Year” for 2008.

If you object to this choice on moral or political grounds, I refer you to my series on the 2007 Person of the Year.

History is what matters, not how what matters makes you feel. ‘Nuff said.

Well…just one more thing…I do not wish for any of my readers to interpret this brief dismissive post as a sign that I would have preferred America to choose John McCain for President.  For the record, I had no preference whatsoever in the matter.  If you would like to know why, I refer you to Leonard Peikoff’s podcast comments here.

The fact that America has declined from the republic it once was to a democracy faced with the McBama non-alternative is the most depressing thing I can think of.  I bid goodbye and good riddance to 2008.

Columbus and Isabella

I wish I had had time for all the posts I had planned for Columbus Week at Powell History, but these past months of teaching–I’m finally off for Christmas break!–have been wonderfully draining. Only now have I found the time to write about a wonderful new find I made.

Recently, I discovered a fascinating painting by Peter Rothermel, the artist who is probably most well known for his depiction of Patrick Henry before the House of Burgesses. It turns out that Rothermel was quite prolific, and he created a number of paintings depicting parts of American history, and especially the American Revolution, which I’ve been thrilled to learn about. Today however, I want to present a painting connected to Columbus that highlights one of the more fascinating relationships that are a part of the story of the great explorer.

As is somewhat common knowledge, it was Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain who upon defeating the last of the Muslims in Spain in 1492 agreed to send Columbus on his voyage. To be precise, however, it should be said that it was Isabella of Castile whose final consent made the epoch-making journey of 1492 possible, and it was Castile that paid the lion’s share. Thus, the relationship between Columbus and Isabella has been of considerable interest, and in paintings that depict Columbus arguing for his westward voyage or, later, pleading his case before the monarchs, it is generally towards Isabella that Columbus is oriented, not Ferdinand.

Columbus before the Queen, by Peter Rothermel

Rothermel, for his part, has chosen the point in the story where Columbus is still making his case. His argument has captured the attention of a scribe, who pauses as if to ponder the notion rather than merely record the proceedings. Ferdinand, seated, motions to quiet his adviser. A young lady sits in rapt attention. Finally, Isabella–the most prominent figure in the main group–raises her hands to her bosom, transfixed.

Although Isabella is standing on a raised platform, symbolizing her authority, she and Columbus are at the same height.  Because of the dark, cavernous, featureless space between them, a strong psychological line exists between them.  In viewing the image, the natural axis upon which one’s gaze moves back and forth from is from one face to the other.

To help us understand what moment this is and what is passing between them, Rothermel provides a set of contextual clues–especially in the bottom right corner.

It is perhaps when viewing this part of the painting that one becomes aware of deliberate distortions in the historicity of the image that Rothermel has employed to relay his theme.  In Columbus’s time, the main thing to grasp is not that the idea of a flat earth held sway (although it did); the more important thing to understand is that there simply wasn’t a point to worrying about it and nobody did. Only a select group of intellectuals in all of Europe were sufficiently literate and aware of  ancient and scientific geography to develop the specialized theoretical knowledge necessary to even debate the question in anything approaching a rational way.

In this setting, globes were certainly not commonplace.  In fact, there probably wasn’t a single globe to be found in Europe! (Apparently, Martin Behaim, may have constructed the first modern globe in 1492, while Columbus was on his fateful voyage.)

The charts and books make more sense from a strict historical perspective.  One is labeled “Marco Polo,” because Columbus was known to have been inspired by the Italian merchant’s travels to the Far East.  But it is their symbolic presence that matters more.  In much the same way, the portrayal of Columbus in aristocratic garb from a later period is intended to convey nobility, a dimension of the man’s character that Rothermel wished to make plain despite the fact that Columbus would never have been clothed in this way during his life.

The painting was for a certain audience: the audience of Nineteenth century Americans who still believed in the essential heroism of Columbus and who also felt that Columbus’s relationship to Isabella was pivotal in leading to the discovery of America.  For those untroubled by modern revisionism, the image can still conjure this exciting theme.

(To further explore this image, and to enjoy the other great works of Peter Rothermel, I highly recommend Rothermel, by Mark Thistlethwaite.  I’d grab one quickly.  It would make a great Christmas gift, and there are only a handful of copies out there!)

Those to Whom I Would Like to Offer My Thanks

Thanksgiving, properly conceived, is a time to pay tribute, or as Craig Biddle puts it, “say justice“–to those who have created the values that sustain us. In that vein, I would like to offer thanks to those whose life-giving contribution makes it possible for me to stomach the morass of the modern world.  This is my “top ten” list of human beings in history, to whom I would like to say “thank you.”

Aristotle -  “The Philosopher” — the fountainhead of Western civilization — the greatest man of the greatest civilization in history.  When I think of Aristotle, I think of the dead end that Greek philosophy (and Western civilization) was headed towards in the subjectivism of the Presocratics and idealism of Plato.  Then along comes a mammoth intellect, who corrects all the fundamental errors of his predecessors, enshrining this-worldliness, rationality, logic, self-interest and aesthetic romanticism as key answers to the major questions that philosophy poses. Listening to Leonard Peikoff explain Aristotle’s achievement in terms of fundamentals in his History of Philosophy lecture series was the first time I cried as an adult.

Thomas Aquinas – If Aristotle is the greatest mind in history, then Aquinas is the most important intellect of the second millennium.  After a Dark Age of Christian mysticism and asceticism, where the light of reason was nearly extinguished but for the embers with the Islamic and Scholastic traditions, one man stepped forward to re-establish the validity of reason.  Not surprisingly, he was an Aristotelian thinker. Though it is often said that Aquinas stood for two ways of reaching the truth–reason and faith–to appreciate Aquinas is to see him as the greatest advocate of the return to reason in the face of a thousand-year period of faith-induced intellectual stagnation.

Ayn Rand – the greatest philosopher of all time — if there is to be a Second Renaissance, it will be because of her.  Like so many young people, I came upon Ayn Rand at a time in my life when I was desperate for clarity.  I had sought sanctuary from the corruptions of the humanities in the rationality of engineering, only to find that modern philosophical ideas had stripped the world of steel and concrete of its cleanliness as well.  I was beginning to fail, to lose motivation, to capitulate to the mediocrity that is modernity.  Then I read The Fountainhead. Then I devoured Atlas Shrugged in a weekend–I got almost no sleep!  “Thank you” cannot capture what I feel for Ayn Rand.

I cannot explain how I knew, but as I was completing my first pass through Ayn Rand’s corpus, I knew that I wanted to be a historian.  Not a philosopher, but a historian. After passing through the gauntlet of a college history education, I began to try to really learn history–and to study the history of history to try to learn how the science had been created and where it had wrong.  There I found my first historian-hero: Thucydides.  This Greek giant of the intellect understood the importance of history to the conceptual mind.  He perceived the need to establish an accurate factual record of men’s experiences in order to provide an empirical and moral guide to life.

The study of history provides one with many values.  There are trends to be grasped and conceptual lessons to be learned.  There are also real “larger-than-life” heroes to be found in the past who saw further, worked harder, and achieved more than others even conceived was possible to man.  These real-life John Galts — the prime movers of history — took the world as they found it and transformed for the better into the one we live in now.  Among these, few are more amazing than Christopher Columbus. For all those to whom America is an irreplaceable value, the story of his discovery of America is an epic of independence and courage.  The path his virtue trod has since been despoiled by the renunciations that are egalitarianism and multiculturalism, but his reputation will endure beyond the thankless people of our time.

Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence established the principle that governments are to be instituted among men for the purpose of securing the individual’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The founding of the United States upon such principles is so profound and revolutionary an accomplishment that it had never before been attempted in history, has never been matched since, and its full meaning and value continue to elude the very Americans  who inherited Jefferson’s accomplishment and now heap scorn upon him from nearly every corner of the free nation he and the Founders created.

The torturous climb out of mysticism that culminated in the Enlightenment has as its awe-inspiring beacon of intellect Isaac Newton. It was Newton who demonstrated that man’s mind could penetrate to nature’s deepest secrets.

“Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night:
God said, Let Newton be! and all was light.”

–Alexander Pope

As far as intellectual sustenance is concerned, Ayn Rand and Thucydides are enough for me, but the mind needs emotional fuel too.  This can take many forms–as many as there are forms of art, recreation, and personal relationships.  For me, two arts are most important: music and painting.  In the former area, I find Verdi the most uplifting and Chopin the most beautiful.  Nonetheless, it is in Beethoven — despite his malevolent temperament, or perhaps because of its root in the great conflicts he experienced — that I find the greatest overall satisfaction.  No one has composed music of comparable grandeur.

I agree with Ayn Rand that Johannes Vermeer is the greatest visual artist in history, and some day I will have the time to dedicate to explaining how it’s possible that I should derive so much inspiration from his paintings when everyone (including Ayn Rand) has believed him to be a naturalist.  (Hint: it’s because he’s not!)  Vermeer saw the world with a clarity and passion of the highest order.  He perceived and portrayed with unparalleled virtuosity the essence of the historical transition of the Age of Reason in his pendants The Geographer and The Astronomer. In a more private and subtle way he used art to enshrine his most cherished values through the portrayal of essentialized psychological moments.

Sharon (properly pronounced “shah-rhone”, not “share-rin”) is the person who every day makes my life worth living.  Over the past eleven years we’ve been together–ten of them married–Sharon has been my partner in the odyssey that we chose to make our lives.  I have never met anyone who can delight in the everyday  values life has to offer while holding on to, projecting, and acting to achieve profound values that others cannot grasp.  She is the only hero in my world of heros whose eyes I can look into when I say, “thank you.”