Alexander Hamilton was obsessed with his reputation.  As Treasury Secretary, he did everything possible to maintain the integrity of the office.  He was detailed, almost to a fault, with the records.  Every “i” was dotted and every “t” was crossed.  Nothing untoward interested Hamilton in the slightest.  The mere thought of impropriety was anathema to him.

His entire professional career was, almost without exception, lived above reproach.  When there was suspicion of wrong-doing, it was always unfounded.

So it comes as something of a surprise that Hamilton displayed such incredibly bad judgement when it came to Maria Reynolds.  The wife of James Reynolds (an acquaintance of the Secretary), Maria was 11 years younger than Hamilton.  She came to him as the distressed spouse of an abusive husband and mother of a young daughter.  Her desperation likely resonated with Hamilton who, as the son of a “fallen woman”, felt a greater sympathy to her plight as he remembered his mother’s struggles.

She asked for some money, and he offered to bring some by her home in the evening.  He would recount the events later when he penned, “…I put a bank bill in my pocket and went to the house.  I inquired for Mrs. Reynolds and was shown upstairs, at the head of which she met me and conducted me into a bedroom.  I took the bill out of my pocket and gave it to her.  Some conversation ensued from which it was quickly apparent that other than pecuniary consolation would be acceptable.”

It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out what, in 18th-Century language, was being described here.

And so began an affair that lasted the better part of 3 years.  It only took a few months for Hamilton to realize he was making mess of things and try to extricate himself.  But James Reynolds was having none of it.  He truly was abusive and he was a rake, but he was also calculating and knew the Treasury Secretary was in a bad position.  Rather than fly into a rage or demand a duel, James began extorting Hamilton, threatening to expose the affair to Eliza (his wife) while essentially forcing him to maintain an illicit relationship.  Mr. Reynolds had become a pimp, and his wife the prostitute for hire.

Alexander Hamilton clearly knew he was in danger, but his weakness for women, his appetites, the obvious lure of Mrs. Reynolds, and her husband’s threats served to keep him hooked.

James wrote ridiculous letters, saying things like, “…you have acted the part of the Cruelist man in existence.  you have made a whole family miserable.  She ses there is no other man that she Care for in this world.  now Sir you have bin the Cause of Cooling her affections for me.”  Blackmail was Reynolds’ strong suit, grammar not so much.

In mid-December, Hamilton and James Reynolds met face-to-face, and the Treasury Secretary was informed that one thousand dollars would go a long ways to healing a husband’s “wounded honor”…not to mention keeping Eliza Hamilton out of the loop.

The following week, on December 22, 1791, made the first blackmail payment to James Reynolds.  He would make another a couple of weeks later.

Alexander Hamilton was a tremendous thinker and visionary, but his terrible decisions regarding Maria Reynolds would serve to sully his good name.

Recommended Reading: Alexander Hamilton

George Washington's masonic apron.

Most Masons can & do go through their entire masonic life completely happy with the lambskin they were given by their Lodge and the thin, cotton numbers that most Lodges keep for members and visitors to wear. These are all well and good. I always wear one of the Lodge-supplied aprons. Masonically speaking, it wasn’t always so…

In our not-so-long ago Masonic past brothers often took great personal pride in their aprons. Their apron oft showed a lot bout the man wearing it, regardless if it had been made by the local seamstress or embroidered by his wife, daughter, or even himself by the imagery thereon. Many of the surviving examples are true works of art! The most famous of which is George Washington’s masonic apron shown here on the right. I know that some say that the brethren can’t meet “on the level” if some are showing their wealth &/or success by the intricacies of their personal apron. I humbly must disagree.

As I see them it is often the home-made, home decorated, aprons that show true dedication to our order. They are often the most beautiful, too.

Fortunately, I am not entirely alone in my beliefs here. There are a few people scattered about this Nation, and the World, that still produce these wonderful aprons.

Here I will post a few photos of some that I have found particularly beautiful…

The Tarbell Apron.

Massachusetts apron, circa 1791.

In my next post I hope to post photos of some aprons made by modern-day artist. (I’m awaiting permission to post the photos..) Meanwhile, give the subject some thought.

As always, I have the Honor to Remain Your Brother,

MTJ

La detenció de la revolució va ser un fracàs, per aquesta raó Lluís XVI de França  i la seva dona, la reina Maria Antonieta, van fugir de París la nit del 20 de juny del 1791.

La seva intenció era sortir de França per refugiar-se a un país veí i aliar-se amb diverses forces absolutistes, per sabotejar la revolució. La seva fugida, no va tenir èxit i van ser va reconeguts i detinguts a Varennes, per la Guàrdia Nacional i amb l’ajuda d’un ciutadà.

Quan el poble de Paris s’assabenta d’aquesta conspiració perd el respecte per el monarca i la seva família. El monarca, desprestigiat, va ser tornat a la capital i es va evidenciar el seu rebuig al procés revolucionar.

El 1792 els sans-coulottes (obrers, artesans…) van assaltar el palau reial, van empresonar el monarca i van proclamar la República (setembre de 1792).  

Una imatge de la detenció del rei i la seva dona a Varennes.

El rei va ser descobert ja que al pagar l’allotjament d’una nit en un hostal, va fer servir amb una moneda reial que portava la seva cara gravada. Així l’hostaler es va assabentar de que eren la mateixa persona i va avisar a la Guàrdia Nacional.´

Aquí tenim una mostra d’una moneda reial.

I will simply express my strong belief, that that point of self-education which consists in teaching the mind to resist its desires and inclinations, until they are proved to be right, is the most important of all, not only in things of natural philosophy, but in every department of daily life.

            – Michael Faraday

                ‘Observations On Mental Education’, a lecture before the Prince Consort and the Royal Institution, May 6, 1854.          Experimental researches in chemistry and physics (1859), 477.

The world little knows how many of the thoughts and theories which have passed through the mind of a scientific investigator, have been crushed in silence and secrecy by his own severe criticism and adverse examination!

            – Michael Faraday

                ‘Observations On Mental Education’, a lecture before the Prince Consort and the Royal Institution, May 6, 1854.          Experimental researches in chemistry and physics (1859), 486.

What a delight it is to think that you are quietly and philosophically at work in the pursuit of science…rather than fighting amongst the crowd of black passions and motives that seem now a days to urge men every where into action.  What incredible scenes every where, what unworthy motives ruled for the moment, under high sounding phrases and at the last what disgusting revolutions.

            – Michael Faraday        Letter to C. Schrenbein, December 15, 1848.

Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature.
            – Michael Faraday (exact source unknown)

The five essential entrepreneurial skills for success are

concentration,

discrimination,

organization,

innovation and

communication.                         – Michael Faraday (exact source unknown)

“His [Faraday's] soul was above all littleness and proof to all egotism.”

            – John Tyndall                   Faraday as a Discoverer (1868), 104.

Michael Faraday was born this date 9/22/1791 at Newington, England (one mile south of London Bridge.)  He was one of ten children born to a poor  blacksmith; reportedly so poor a loaf of bread may have had to last all week.

At fourteen he apprenticed to a bookbinder learning much by reading (after work) the books being printed.  This led to him seeking (and at twenty-two gaining) a position with Sir Humphrey Davey.  Faraday traveled eighteen months with him obtaining a “university education” as his assistant.

Faraday went on to make great and well known discoveries in electro-magnetism and chemistry.  He was a true scientist – he pursued truth.

Many may not know that Faraday was a Christian (Presbyterian- Sandamanian),[1]  His was a deep faith which led him to make his confession at twenty-nine and later to become a minister in his church.  He died in 1867.

Hy semua nya.,.,
gw Afif,.,.mahasiswa baru di Budi Luhur.
Gw anak Ti.,.
Salam kenal ya.
^^

Today, banks are a part of everyday life.  Our money is deposited there (usually via electronic transfer), we draw on it to buy stuff (usually via electronic transfer), and if there’s enough in our accounts, we might even draw a bit of income in the form of interest paid.  But unless there’s a discrepancy or our identity is stolen or we lose our cash card, we really don’t give banks a second thought.

Back in 1790, however, banks were not a part of everyday life.  Many people in the infantile United States looked on banks with intense suspicion.  And when Alexander Hamilton, the 30-something Treasury Secretary, proposed a government-run “central bank”, one didn’t have to go to the woods to see the fur fly.  As a leading Federalist, the bank was one of many ideas that Hamilton proposed to strengthen the central government, establish good credit with trading partners, pay down debts, and create a uniform U.S. currency.

Others, however, saw it as Hamilton grasping for greater and greater power and, ultimately, the return of a monarchy.  When the Bank was proposed, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and James Madison spoke for this group in a strongly-worded letter to President Washington, castigating the “bank” concept and warning of Hamilton’s ambitions.  Hamilton, as usual, wrote a massive response that swept opposition away.  As the primary defender of the U.S. Constitution when writing The Federalist Papers, he fully understood the importance of the existing government and had no desire to revert to a monarchy.

In February of 1791, the Bank of the United States was created with a 20-year charter.  Carpenter Hall (shown above), located in Philadelphia and meeting place for the First Continental Congress, was selected as the Bank’s location.  On July 4th of the same year, the country’s first official “IPO” (Initial Public Offering) took place, when stock in the Bank was sold to the public.  And for all their fears and concerns, the stock sale created a frenzy.  All the stock sold in an hour, and the rumor of double-digit returns in interest sparked a frenzied speculation that simply overran people’s sensibilities.

People began trading their shares, called scrip, driving the price through the roof.  They stopped working, they stopped running their businesses, and newspapers came out less frequently.  An angry Jefferson wrote, “Stock and scrip are the sole domestic subjects of conversation. . . . Ships are lying idle at the wharfs, buildings are stopped, capital withdrawn from commerce, manufacturers, arts and agriculture to be employed in gambling.”  People gave themselves over to the “baser angels of their nature” and simply went nuts.  It was “Scrippomania”.

Much of the speculation was led by Hamilton’s former Assistant Treasury Secretary, William Duer.  He conjured up all kinds of speculation schemes to drive prices up.  Many people, including Duer, completed their purchases with the help of loans from the smaller national banks, which horrified Hamilton.  On several occasions, he warned the public on the dangers of using credit to make such volatile purchases.  He warned Duer specifically about this, adding that his former position in the Treasury Department made him susceptible to charges of “insider trading”.  On almost all counts, Hamilton was ignored.

Within weeks, stock prices had climbed from $25 to more than $300 per share.  It was not sustainable, and the Treasury Secretary knew it.  On August 11, 1791, the runup ended in dramatic fashion.  Smaller banks refused to extend any more credit to people wanting to trade the scrip.  This frightened investors, who now realized that the stock they held was valued at far more than it was worth.  A frantic sell-off ensued, the price plummeted, and people lost their fortunes.  A good number of people were poorer now than they were when the Bank of the United States stock was first issued back in July.

The United States, just a few years old, had experienced its first Stock Market crash.

Recommended Reading:  The American Heritage Website – Alternatively, subscribe to the magazine.

In 1791, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution were written. These ten amendments are referred to as the Bill of Rights. These were designed to limit the power of Government, and ensure continued freedom and liberty for the people. The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The intention of this amendment is obvious: To make sure hat the U.S. Congress shall not make any laws with the intention of either favoring a specific religion, or discriminating against someone of another.

However, in the past century, the first amendment has been radically reinterpreted by legislative powers such as the U.S. Supreme Court, who have oppressed the new interpretation down on the American people as law. This is the way in which the first amendment has been reinterpreted: That the first amendment has in fact set up a “wall of separation” between the Church and State that extends through all forms of Government, and prohibits all levels of Government from promoting or hindering a religion/religious organization in any way at all. For example, in the case: Everson vs. Board of Education, a local taxpayer, Arch R. Everson, challenged a New Jersey law that permitted State funding for the transportation of the students of local private schools to and from schools, of which 96% were Parochial Catholic schools, under the grounds that by giving money to reimburse parents and students for the cost of transportation to and from the school, the State was giving aid to the religious organization, and in doing so was violating the New Jersey Constitution, as well as the First Amendment. Everson lost against the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, which at that time was New Jersey’s highest court, so he brought his case to the U.S. Supreme court, under federal grounds. The ACLU(American Civil Liberties Union) a far-left organization founded by Roger Baldwin in 1920, was in favor of Everson’s case. During the case, the ACLU stated that the New Jersey law that provided state reimbursement for the transportation of students to and from parochial schools, “constitutes a definite crack in the wall of separation between church and state. Such cracks have a tendency to widen beyond repair unless promptly sealed up.” This metaphor: “wall of separation” is used a lot by those who have such radical ideas on how the first amendment should be interpreted. This metaphor was used by our third President Thomas Jefferson, who used it in writing a letter to a committee of Danbury Baptists. At the time, America had just passed through the Presidential contest of 1880. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority, and had been worried by claims made by Jefferson’s Federalist foes, who called him an atheist. The Danbury Baptists had sent a letter to President Jefferson congratulating him on his victory to the Presidency. Jefferson sent this reply: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Those who support a separation of church and state that extends through all levels of government, and prohibits things as trivial as the State funding transportation of students to and from parochial catholic schools, as well as prohibits the leading of a prayer during a City Council Meeting, have adopted this metaphor to wrongly define the extent and purpose of the first amendment. One example of such behavior was displayed in Everson vs. Board of Education, in the statement made by the ACLU that I mentioned earlier. The Supreme Court made their decision in favor of Everson, and in so doing accepted the radical far-left’s false interpretation of the first amendment. The point of this article is to show that the Supreme Court has legally reinterpreted the first amendment to stand for the very thing it was meant to destroy. In a later article I will show in more detail what Jefferson’s “wall of separation” stands for. I hope that this article has helped you to better understand the dangerous myth that is the “wall of separation” between church and state.

Calvin Lyman

L’on appelle volontiers « féministe » ce texte d’Olympe de Gouges. Pourtant, aucun des droits qui y sont déclarés n’est mis en avant comme étant un droit propre à la femme. Aucun droit spécifique à la femme, comparable à la manière dont un féminisme plus tardif a pu se représenter le droit à l’avortement, ou le droit au congé de maternité, par exemple, n’y figure.

Publiée en 1791, dans l’effervescence de la Révolution, cette Déclaration des droits de la femme représente l’universalisation de la Déclaration des droits de l’homme. En insistant sur l’appartenance du beau sexe au genre humain, on peut dire d’elle qu’elle est la toute première et véritable Déclaration UNIVERSELLE des droits de l’Homme, en général.

Déclaration des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne (mp3)

Télécharger l’audiolivre en intégralité

]]> http://irishmartialarts.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/macgregors-lecture-on-the-art-of-defence-paisley-1791/ Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:20:27 +0000 oprishki http://irishmartialarts.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/macgregors-lecture-on-the-art-of-defence-paisley-1791/

Dug up by Louie Pastore:

“I am told that a number of the Irish are very good at fighting with 
two sticks, viz. a short one in their left hand to guard with and a 
long one in their right, which they manage with amazing dexterity. 
This is practicing sword and dagger, the same as the evolutions of the 
backsword are performed with cudgels”
MacGregor’s lecture on the Art of Defence, Paisley 1791

In Emma Smith’s diaries, which begin (as far as what is extant) in 1815, she time and again mentions a series of concerts which came under the general heading The Antient Music. Her sister Augusta was an especial fan. So imagine my surprise to see two volumes – one for 1829 and an earlier one from 1791 – dedicated to the programs and participants of these Antient Music concerts!!

Some very familiar names, thanks to the Smiths and Goslings seeing these artists perform — or hiring them for their own soirees:

* Mr W. Knyvett
* Mrs W. Knyvett
* Mr Vaughan
* Miss Stephens

Then there are the very well known, such as “Madame Malibran”!

These concerts were given under the “patronage of His Majesty,” and, in 1829, performed at the New Rooms, Hanover Square. Lists, such as these of performers and subscribers, as always most welcome; for what other printed matter can allow the researcher to look into a world two hundred years in the past? And maybe, just maybe, you find a correct spelling for a name, or a first name for someone’s last name.

For 1829, the year of Mary’s (Lady Smith) earliest diary and the year Emma’s little Cholmeley was born, we see the following familiar names among the subscribers:

* Mr. Gosling
* Miss Charlotte Gosling
* Mrs F. Gregg
* Miss Emily Gregg
* Miss Jessy Gregg
* Miss Harriet Gregg
* Mr. Richard Gosling
* Mrs. Richard Gosling
* Miss Smith

* Miss Jelfe
* Hon. Thomas Kenyon
* Hon. Mrs. Thomas Kenyon
* Miss Charlotte Kenyon
* Miss Kinnaird
* Rev. James Brownlow
* Sir Astley Cooper, Bt.
* Lady Astley Cooper
* Mr. William Courtenay
* Mr. W. Reginald Courtenay
* Mr. T.P. Courtenay
* Miss E. Courtenay
* Mr Capel
* Mrs Capel
* Miss Capel
* Lord Bishop of London
* Miss Neave
* Lord Nepean
* Dowager Countess Poulett
* Sir Lucas Pepys, Bart.
* Lady Pepys
* Mr Pepys
* Mrs Pepys
* Lady Sykes

See the whole list for yourself here; and don’t forget to take a look at the concerts being given that year! For instance, the concert which opened the season (Thursday, 5 March 1829)  under the “direction of His Grace The Archbishop of York, for His Royal Highness The Duke of Cumberland”. It featured music of Handel, Mozart, Graun, Handel, Geminiani, more Mozart, and a lot more Handel. Included with the words are detailed listings of who sang. It is possible that those programs which generated this book were among those seen in Augusta Smith’s sole sketchbook; Augusta used them as scrap paper! If so, the originals were a heavier card stock. She either used them because of a lack of anything else when the mood to draw struck her, or else she saved them in order to have some scrap. What a wonderful souvenir to unearth online!

As to the 1791 edition, again we see some of the family in attendance; these concerts were performed at the “New Rooms, Tottenham-street”:

* Mr Smith Burges
* Mr. R. Gosling
* Mr. W. Gosling
* Mrs. Gosling
* Mr. F. Gosling
* Mrs. F. Gosling
* Mr D. Smith
* Lady Sykes
* Miss Smith
* Bishop of Winchester

* Mr Houghton
* Mrs Houghton
* Mr. Bramstone
* Mrs. Bramstone
* Mr. Bosanquet
* Mrs Bosanquet
* Lord Brownlow
* Lord Bulkeley
* Lady Hotham
* Miss Hotham
* Sir Lucas Pepys
* The Duke and Duchess of Devonshire

An absolute THRILL is to see listed among the performers a certain “Miss Storace” and “Mr. Kelly” — they can only be Nancy Storace and Michael Kelly — two performers who premiered (1784) Mozart’s Le nozze di Figaro!!! Madame Mara gets a mention or two in the letters of Mrs Lefroy (Jane Austen’s friend) and Mr Knyvett (presumably the father, Charles Knyvett senior) was among the soloists that year too.

NB: Poor Mozart would of course not see the end of 1791…

In May of 1787, the city of Philadelphia played host to 55 men who spent a lot of time debating, arguing, and trying to convince each other of their (and their state’s) beliefs.  It had been four years since the American Revolution had officially ended with the stroke of the pen in Paris, and the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781 by the Second Continental Congress, had created the “United States of America” and been its charter document.

But six years later, the Articles were found wanting.  Stronger, more permanent language was needed, and the middle months of 1787 provided the venue for the creation of the U.S. Constitution.  By July 1 of the next year, all but two of the Thirteen Colonies had ratified it (North Carolina would come aboard in 1789 and Rhode Island in 1790).

Still, not everyone was completely satisfied.  Some believed that the Constitution had done a great job of listing the powers of government, limiting them, providing checks and balances, and the like.  But they didn’t think it spoke specifically to the basic rights of the individual.  Others thought that the Constitution didn’t need to address them, because the Constitution was not a surrender of rights, and listing rights in a document might limit rights to only those listed.

But both sides had lived through the time before the Revolution, when the British Crown had stifled their freedoms and denied them what they believed to be their basic rights.  So I’m guessing they pretty quickly understood how a good government today could turn tyrannical down the road, and rights not enumerated could be become rights denied. 

And so James Madison (drawing heavily from George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights) proposed a set of protections (called the Bill of Rights) for the individual citizen from the government, addressing issues such as religious practices, speech, bearing arms, due process, and self-incrimination.  Support from many of the Founding Fathers such as Jefferson and Washington meant relatively quick passage through the First Congress.  But as Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights needed to be ratified by three-fourths of the States as well.  This was accomplished on December 15, 1791, and they became part of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights are the “10 Commandments” of the U.S. citizen.  They are not laws we have to follow, but ”Thou Shalt Nots” by which our government must abide.  They were created by the citizen, who was very familiar with a government of tyranny and desperately wanted to avoid it.  And they were written by the citizen, whose finger had been dipped in the blood of the American Revolution to shake off that government of tyranny.

Fareweel to a’ our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory!
Fareweel ev’n to the Scottish name.
Sae famed in martial story!

Robert Burns was rightly worried when he wrote ‘such a parcel of rogues in a nation’ in 1791. The poem was about the act of union in 1707, but even at the time of writing Scotland was going through an identity crisis, having only preserved the Kirk and law in terms of administrative identity, Scotland lacked any kind of national substance and Burns was well aware of this.

 217 years later Scotland finds itself pressed with similar questions of identity and history. Alex Salmond’s relentless pursuit of independence, many believe, could be the last chance for a generation to secure self rule and truly pursue a completely independent Scottish identity.

 My view of the SNP before 2007 was that they were a party thinly veiled in fake ambition and misplaced patriotism, lead by a man who, ironically, confirmed our title as “The sick man of Europe”. They lacked backbone when it came to making political decisions and setting political agendas, but if being Scottish has taught me anything it has got to be our incredible will to succeed and survive, unless of course we’re talking football.

Sweeping changes by the SNP to Education, Health and Tax have left people understandingly happy and shown that they do have political clout even amongst the big hitting Labour and Conservative parties who rule from Westminster. However, as we mount ambitious attempts to break away from the UK are we leaving much of our Scottish history, Culture and identity in the past?

In Victorian and Edwardian Scotland, public culture was an object for struggle, often class struggle, in which much of our hard working image was created. We were world famous for ship building, being exceptionally hard working labourers and keeping the wallets shut. We were proud of our clan heritage, military past and distinct dress sense. These stereotypes have evolved over the years, the ship yards have decreased considerably, new business sectors have been created in the central belt, our farms are becoming redundant, credit cards and loans are available from every bank, we are now an integrated society with typically Asian or European names and only where the kilt on special occasions. So, despite claiming back much of our own political identity from Westminster we have seen the traditional Scottish identity all but disappear in favour of importing the common western culture.

The Scottish National Party isn’t to blame for this creeping western imperialism, but they can do something about it.

We need only look at the sharp decrease in Gaelic speakers between the 1991 and 2001 Censuses as an indicator to sneaking cultural suicide. According to a Holyrood report from the 2001 Census the Gaelic language should be completely extinct by 2050. The example set by the Irish and Welsh, who have re-introduced their national language back into primary schools, High Schools, the workplace and even in the streets is exemplary. The Maori population in New Zealand made such an impact with the rejuvenation of their language that most white people speak the basics and all public service writing is bi-lingual. As a figurehead of identity and culture, language could go a long way to realising Alex Salmond’s dream of independence or could we really be saying goodbye to the Scottish name?

En el presente artículo trataremos de abordar una cuestión compleja que, aún hoy día, genera grandes debates y controversias dentro del gremio de los historiadores. Explicar la realidad de los sucesos revolucionarios que tuvieron lugar en Francia a caballo entre el siglo XVIII y el XIX es, en la actualidad, una tarea compleja. Poco sabemos de algunos de los aspectos fundamentales; y, por si fuera poco, son abundantes las valoraciones contrapuestas de aquellos que conocemos al detalle. No obstante, la mayor parte de los autores coinciden al afirmar que el proceso histórico abierto el 14 de julio de 1789 fue heredero del pensamiento político del XVIII y, al mismo tiempo, padre del desarrollo del siglo XIX.

Sin lugar a dudas, la Revolución Francesa tuvo consecuencias negativas; fueron abundantes los errores y excesos de sus protagonistas. Sin embargo, una visión global de todos esos acontecimientos –de los cuales, no lo olvidemos, somos herederos- nos llevan a concluir que el global de la misma arroja un resultado positivo; gracias a ella la transformación política y social de signo liberal y burgués experimentó un gran impulso. Tampoco coinciden los autores a la hora de enumerar las causas de la revolución. A mi juicio, además del desarrollo del pensamiento político citado anteriormente, jugaron un papel fundamental el descontento de los privilegiados, el endeudamiento de la hacienda francesa, la derrota en la Guerra de los Siete Años, y las crisis campesionas finiseculares.

Tal vez por influencia de la historiografía marxista suele afirmarse que los acontecimientos revolucionarios franceses evolucionaron desde una situación de prerrevolución aristocrática a una revolución del Tercer Estado. Sea como fuere, la mayor parte de los autores coincide en la triple periodización de estos hechos históricos: el constitucionalismo moderado (1789-1791); la Convención, con el predominio de los girondinos (1791-92) y de los jacobinos (1793-94); y el Directorio (1795-1799). Además, existe un amplio consenso dentro de la comunidad científica a la hora de destacar la importacia histórica de la Revolución Francesa. No obstante, por cuestiones ideológicas o de escuela, este se convierte en disenso al explicar los hechos o establecer valoraciones. A continuación trataremos de explicar este desacuerdo analizando brevemente las principales corrientes historiográficas con sus respectivos autores.

Sobre la historiografía conservadora del XIX poco diremos. Tan sólo destacar que con autores como Burke, Taine, Gaxotte o Aubrys, se iniciaron los estudios sobre la Revolución Francesa; y que, a consecuencia de la época y de las ideas de estos estudiosos, fue con una visión un tanto negativa hacia esos hechos. Por el contrario, los historiadores liberales, especialmente Michelet y Aulard, pretendieron elevar a los revolucionarios al situarlos como herederos de la intelectualidad ilustrada. Por tanto, la historiografía liberal trató por todos los medios de dignificar los acontecimientos franceses. Trataron de explicarlos como una necesidad histórica: un nuevo sistema político que se abría paso a expensas de otro caduco. Por esa razón, sin olvidar aspectos negativos como “el Terror”, hicieron especial hincapié en los textos más importantes -Declaración de Derechos y sucesivas constituciones- y en los hechos más atrayentes para la mentalidad romántica de la época (El pueblo en la calle, la Bastilla el 14 de julio).

Blanc, Jaurès, Mathiez, Labrousse, Rudé, Soboul y Lefebvre son los principales representantes de historiografía socialista en Francia . El primero de ellos nos deja una visión más positiva de los jacobinos, al tiempo que considera muy negativa la etapa napoleónica. El segundo centra sus estudios en la lucha de clases de la Francia finisecular, prestando especial atención al ascenso de la burguesía. Otros autores socialistas prefirieron prestar menos atención a la Historia de los grandes acontecimientos para centrarse en aspectos socioeconómicos. Ese fue el caso de Labrousse, volcado en el estudio de los salarios y los precios, y Rudé, especialista en mentalidades y opinión pública. La mayor parte de los miembros de esta escuela considera que los verdaderos protagonistas de la Revolución Francesa fueron los pequeños productores. Según su visión, la burguesía siempre fue a la zaga de estos personajes, juegando un papel moderador. Así explican su apoyo a la monarquía constitucional y, con la caída de esta, a los girondinos.

Los historiadores marxistas suelen distinguir dos etapas a la hora de estudiar la Revolución Francesa: ascendente (1789-1794) y descendente o de reacción burguesa (desde 1795). Tanto Mazauric como Markow, principales expertos de esta escuela en la cuestión que nos ocupa, basan sus estudios en los postulados del materialismo histórico. En lo que se refiere a la lucha de clases como motor de la Historia, afirman que, debido a la existencia de varios grupos dentro de la propia revolución, esta estuvo marcada por una constante lucha entre los mismos. Además, aplican los conceptos de estructura y superestructura al Antiguo Régimen, llegando a afirmar que la caída del mismo fue fruto del desfase de las mismas. Estos autores prestan especial atención en sus estudios a los “sans culottes”, a los que atribuyen un pensamiento proto-comunista. No obstante, reconocen que, en la coincidencia coyuntural de intereses, los burgueses fueron los grandes beneficiados.

Tras haber analizado los planteamientos teóricos de cuatro grandes visiones historiográficas, nos centraremos en el repaso de las Interpretaciones revisionistas. En primer lugar, los autores revisionistas -grupo complejo en el que encontramos estudiosos que van desde mediados del XIX a mediados del XX- atacan duramente la concepción de la revolución como una crisis exclusivamente política. Algunos de ellos, caso de Tocqueville, Godechot, Fouret y Richet, recalcan la herencia de la Ilustración, y consideran la etapa jacobina como un exceso de la revolución. Además, dan gran valor a los hechos posteriores a 1795.

Finalmente, enumeraremos los que, actualmente, son los núcleos de conflicto en la investigación histórica; las cuestiones que marcan el debate historiográfico. En primer lugar, la controversia sobre los cambios estructurales que la inician; a lo que hemos de añadir la confrontación sobre la clase social “motor” del proceso. También son importantes aspectos como la cuestión de la refeudalización como causa de la revolución, la teoría de las revoluciones atlánticas, y la polémica jacobina. Los autores tampoco se ponen de acuerdo a la hora de definir los acontecimientos francese como un conjunto de revoluciones o como evolución temporal de la misma.

Flag of EU

Reading Hungarian Spectrum’s The fate of informers in Hungary (h/t Neeka) reminded me of an article I read about two weeks ago by Jacques Rupnik titled From Democracy Fatigue to Populist Backlash (PDF) in Journal of Democracy, Vol. 18, No. 4, October 2007.

Just like the Hungarian Spectrum’s post, Rupnik explores the question of populism in Eastern Europe, specifically as it pertains to the purging of former communists. However, Rupnik dwells deeper on the implications of this phenomenon for democracy in Europe, indeed, as the title of the symposium – to which Rupnik’s paper belongs – reveals: Is East-Central Europe backsliding?

My answer to this question, as ultimately Rupnik’s, is a confident no. In part, you can understand Rupnik’s concern by remembering the historical context. This was the time of increased intra-EU tensions (not that these have greatly abated, but relatively speaking) contributed especially by Poland’s Kaczynski twins.

Their notion of democracy hijacked by post-communist elites includes a conspiracy theory according to which the key institutions of parliamentary democracy and the market economy were secretly sold out to the ex-communists and their fellow travelers among the former opposition (pg 21).

Rupnik’s concern was the EU’s ability to contain such potentially anti-democratic outbursts. He writes that…

EU tutelage works until you get in, but once you have joined there are few incentives or means to induce further reforms or the observance of democratic norms. EU conditionality works best with relatively small and weak states, and its success depends on achieving cognitive and behavioral change. Without a change in political culture, the formal adoption of institutions or norms may merely create an empty shell and possibly undermine the EU from within (pg 22).

In the end however, populism has its limits, and Rupnik argues that the EU has ways to restrain its worst manifestations. He cites the marginalization of Wolfgang Schüssel coalition government for including Haider’s far-right Austrian Freedom Party, which is an indication that “the EU framework can help to marginalize radical populists and absorb the more moderate ones. Rupnik essentially adopts the Hegelian argument (popularized by Fukuyama):

today there is no alternative to liberal democracy in Europe.

The existence of the EU itself is enough to calm fears of resurgent populist and nationalist movements. Thus, Rupnik’s conclusion is that “Europe is less vulnerable than other regions facing democratic regression.”

I was less convinced by Rupnik’s reasons for the populist backlash in Eastern Europe, which he attributes among others to the absence of corps intermediaries, for example a lack of truly independent media that could challenge “creeping authoritarianism.”

Is media “truly independent” in France, Germany, Britain or the U.S.?  Observers in Poland or Hungary would be better positioned to clarify the degree of media independence and whether they serve a balancing role against their governments.

Rupnik’s reference to the “return of dormant strands in the region’s political culture” smacks of determinism and the false implication that it is “natural” for Eastern Europe to succumb to the “authoritarian temptation” (pg 24).  An odd observation to make since the first constitution in Europe was written and adopted in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as early as 1791.

Finally, the concern that the European Union could become “little more than an enhanced freetrade zone” because of new members backsliding on democratic practice while pursuing a strident defense of “national interests” is questionable. It presumes that other nation-states comprising the EU do not pursue their interests in Brussels and that the backsliding of democratic practices is confined solely to Central and Eastern European EU members (for a non-Eastern European example, see Nosemonkey’s latest post).

Alexander Hamilton,

writes reports on manufactures in 1791. He only had A candle. And he could see how stupid free trade is.
He writes:

Protecting duties–or duties on those foreign articles which are the rivals of the domestic ones, intended to be encouraged. Duties of this nature evidently amount to a virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics since by enhancing the charges on foreign articles, they enable the national manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors. The propriety of this species of encouragement need not be dwelt upon; as it is not only a clear result from the numerous topics which have been suggested, but is sanctioned by the laws of the United States in a variety of instances; it has the additional recommendation of being a resource of reevenue. Indeed all the duties imposed on imported articles, though with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect in contemplation, and except where they fall on raw materials wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufactures of the country.

This is another and an efficacious mean of encouraging national manufactures, but in general it is only fit to be employed when a manufacture, has made such a progress and is in so many hands as to insure a due competition, and an adequate supply on reasonable terms. Of duties equivalent to prohibitions, there are examples in the Laws of the United Staets, and there are other cases to which the principle may be advantageously extended, but they are not numerous. Considering a monopoly of the domestic market to its own manufacturers as the reigning policy of manufacturing nations, a similar policy on the part of the United States in every proper instance, is dictated, it might almost be said, by the principles of distributive justice; certainly by the duty of endeavoring to secure to their own citizens a reciprocity of advantages.

The desire of securing a cheap and plentiful supply for the national workmen, and, where the article is either peculiar to the country, or of peculiar quality there, the jealousy of enabling foreign workmen to rival those of the nation, with its own materials, are the leading motives to this species of regulation. It ought not to be affirmed, that it is in no instance proper, but it is certainly one which ought to be adopted with great circumspection and only in very plain cases. It is seen at once, that its immediate operation, is to abridge the demand and keep down the price of the produce of some other branch of industry, generally speaking, of agriculture, to the prejudice of those, who carry it on; and though if it be really essential to the prosperity of any very important national manufacture, it may happen that those who are injured in the first instance, may be eventually indemnified, by the superior steadiness of an extensive domestic market, depending on that prosperity: yet in a matter, in which there is so much room for nice and difficult combinations, in which such opposite considerations combat each other, prudence seems to dictate, that the expedient in question, ought to be indulged with a sparing hand.

This has been found one of the most efficacious means of encouraging manufactures, and it is in some views, the best. Though it has not yet been practiced upon by the government of the United States (unless the allowances on the exportation of dried and pickled fish and salted meat could be considered as a bounty) and though it is less favored by public opinion than some other modes. Its advantages, are these– It is a species of encouragement more positive and direct than any other, and for that very reason, has a more immediate tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprises, increasing the chances of profit, and diminishing the risks of loss, in the first attempts. It avoids the inconvenience of a temporary augmentation of price, which is incident to some other modes, or it produces it to a less degree; either by making no addition to the charges on the rival foreign article, as in the case of protecting duties, or by making a smaller addition. The first happens when the fund for the bounty is derived from a different object (which may or may not increase the price of some other article, according to the nature of that object) the second, when the fund is derived from the same or a similar object of foreign manufacture. One percent duty on the foreign article converted into a bounty on the domestic, will have an equal effect with a duty of two percent, exclusive of such bounty; and the price of the foreign commodity is liable to be raised, in the one case, in the proportion of one percent; in the other, in that of two percent. Indeed the bounty when drawn from another source is calculated to promote a reduction of price, because without laying any new charge on the foreign article, it serves to introduce a competition with it, and to increase the total quantity of the article in the market. Bounties have not like high protecting duties, a tendency to produce scarcity. An increase of price is not always the immediate, though, where the progress of a domestic manufacture does not counteract a rise, it is commonly the ultimate effect of an additional duty. In the interval, between the laying of the duty and a proportional increase of price, it may discourage importation, by intefering with the profits to be expected from the sale of the article. Bounties are sometimes not only the best, but the only proper expedient, for uniting the encouragement of a new object of agriculture, with that of a new object of manufacture. It is the interest of the farmer to have the production of the raw material promoted, by counteracting the interference of the foreign material of the same kind. It is the interest of the manfuacturer to have the material abundant and cheap. If prior to the domestic production of the material, in sufficient quantity, to supply the manufacturer on good terms; a duty to be laid upon the importation of it from abroad, with a view to promote the raising of it at home, the interests both of the farmer and manufacturer will be disserved. By either destroying the requisite supply, or raising the price of the article, beyond what can be afforded to be given for it, by the conductor of an infant manufacture, it is abandoned or fails; and there being no domestic manufactories to create a demand for the raw material, which is raised by the farmer, it is in vain, that the competition of the like foreign article may have been destroyed. It cannot escape notice, that a duty upon the importation of an article can no otherwise aid the domestic production of it, than giving the latter greater advantages in the home market. It can have no influence upon the advantageous sale of the article produced, in foreign markets; no tendency, therefore to promote its exportation. The true way to conciliate these two interests, is to lay a duty on foreign manufactures of the material, the growth of which is desired to be encouraged, and to apply the produce of that duty by way of bounty, either upon the production of the material itself or upon its manufacture at home or upon both. In this disposition of the thing, the manufacturer commences his enterprise under every advantage, which is attainable, as to quantity or price, of the raw material: And the farmer if the bounty be immediate to him, is enabled by it to enter into a successful competition with the foreign material; if the bounty be to the manufacturer on so much of the domestic material as he consumes, the operation is nearly the same; he has a motive of interest to prefer the domestic commodity, if of equal quality, even at a higher price than the foreign, so long as the difference of price is any thing short of the bounty which is allowed upon the article. Except the stable and ordinary kinds of household manufactures, or those for which there are very commanding local advantages, pecuniary bounties are in most cases indispensable to the introduction of a new branch. A stimulus and a support not less powerful and direct is generally speaking essential to the overcoming of the obstacles which arise from the competitions of superior skill and maturity elsewhere. Bounties are especially essential, in regard to articles, upon which those foreigners, who have been accustomed to supply a country, are in the practice of granting them. The continuance of bounties on manufactures long established must almost always be of questionable policy: because a presumption would arise in every such case, that there were natural and inherent impediments to success. But in new undertakings, they are as justifiable, as they are oftentimes necessary. There is a degree of prejudice against bounties from an appearance of giving away the public money, without an immediate consideration, and from a supposition, that they serve to enrich particular classes, at the expense of the community.

I finished my Advanced Reading Copy of The Whiskey Rebels by David Liss.  Ask my wife.  I can’t stop talking about this book.  I am a history buff and have started to really take an interest in the American Revolution and the following twenty years in which our nation went through tremendous growing pains to find our identity as a nation.  I recently read Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton and both loved it and learned a tremendous amount.  So when I received the ARC for this book I was really excited to get right to it.  I have heard that Mr. Liss came up with the idea for this book while reading Alexander Hamilton.

I have read three of the other four books by Mr. Liss and really enjoyed them.  These books all have a great mystery to be solved and have history lesson worked in.  His books are well written with a flair for historical accuracy.  The historical details work because they presented as a history lesson, but to create the environment that the characters move through.  The Whiskey Rebels is no exception.

The book follows two main characters, Captain Ethan Saunders and Joan Maycott.  Each character narrates their alternating chapters in the first person with Capt. Saunders narrating the first chapter and Mrs. Maycott narrating the second chapter.  Capt. Saunders narrates in the present while Mrs. Maycott tells her story starting years earlier which catches up to Capt. Saunders and the “present” by the end of the book.  I loved the dual narrators.  It accomplished two things.  First, Mrs. Maycott’s chapters work as a history lesson of sorts, explain and putting a human face of the origins of the future Whiskey Rebellion.  It’s not just a history lesson though.  He story is very intriguing and would certainly keep you reading if it were it’s own stand along novel.  Second, Capt. Saunders’ is a more action oriented role.  Having his voice silenced for a chapter serves to build the tension as you wait to find out what will happen to him next.

One other note.  There are layers to this book.  Mr. Liss explains them a bit in the Author’s Note at the end of the book, but there are quite a few secondary characters who were indeed real people.  You could easily read through the book and if you haven’t read up on this period of history you would have no idea there aren’t just characters made up for the book.  I love the fact that he was able to use these people in this fictitious story, and does so in a way that he isn’t distorting them.  He weaves them realistically into his plot to the point that if you don’t know the history well, you don’t know where fact end and fiction begins.

Another piece I am working on, for the obvious reason that it is probably one of the most common works used for audition music.

So, a little about the work. Mozart wrote his famous Clarinet Concerto in 1791, towards the end of his life. In fact it is the last strictly instrumental piece he wrote, he died less than a year after it was competed. Mozart used an incomplete concerto he wrote for basset horn ( K584b) for the beginning of this concerto but the final clarinet concerto was written for a friend and virtuoso clarinetist, Anton Stadler for a basset clarinet, which is a clarinet that extends down to low C (instead of the normal E). The piece was premiered in Prague by Stadler, and was received fairly well. Surprisingly since it was so uncommon for clarinetists to be able to play some of the low notes in the work, his publisher printed a copy with those sections transposed and it wasn’t until the mid 20th century that it was discovered that the original work had been written for an extended instrument.

In middle school I worked up the adagio (2nd movement) and played it for a solo competition. Right now I am focusing on the first movement, the allegro. It is technically challenging, but quite doable. Mozart is always very fun to play for me, and I know few people who don’t enjoy listening to his works. As of now I am working strictly on the first to pages, a passage that is often used in auditions.

(iskry.pl)

Konstytucje mają to do siebie, że jeśli nie stoi za nimi obyczaj polityczny, tradycja i  – co tu kryć – siła, są tylko kawałkiem zapisanego papieru. Często pełnią rolę zasłonki lub fartuszka na pokaz, takiej prawnej wioski patiomkinowskiej, dzięki której zamordyzm pokazuje, jaki jest demokratyczny.