Tag: history

J.D. Vance’s Bold Step to Reclaim Robert E. Lee’s Legacy

J.D. Vance invited the ire of countless woke historical revisionists when he pushed back against the suggestion that, when Pete Hegseth removed retired General Mark Milley’s portrait from the Pentagon, this was somehow a sign that the Trump administration will be iconoclastic and authoritarian..

Vance’s response perfectly captures what most Americans probably felt in reading Glasser’s nonsense.

Vance’s including Robert E. Lee in this short list of American heroes whose reputations have been wrongfully tarnished could not have been an accident. It is a brave statement for Vance to make and a brilliant cultural flank against those who have been uninterruptedly murdering historical truth throughout the post-Obama era.

Violent mobs and woke social initiatives have led to the defacement or removal of these great Americans’ monuments for many years now.  They were to be newly cast as racists and villains, and you were also to be smeared if you didn’t buy into the lies.

You were a racist, for example, if you questioned the claims made in The 1619 Project. This farce-masquerading-as-journalism argued that the United States engaged in its war of independence because American colonials wanted to keep slaves.

Then, in 2020, Democrats began tearing down the statues of generals such as Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson and Robert E. Lee, men tarred by the taint of the Confederacy, but also began defacing statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Their reasoning was that the American colonials and the Confederate rebels were both just slaveholders who were fighting to keep their slaves, making them all reasonable targets for the revisionists.

Of course, even honest leftists have admitted that the 1619 Project is among the purest garbage ever put to print. The historical record clearly shows that there’s no credible evidence suggesting that the colonials wanted independence to keep slaves. But if that sort of nuance is important, it should also be important that the historical record clearly shows that the Southern states didn’t simply engage in its failed war for independence because they wanted to keep slaves, either.

Keep reading

Professor says monuments to American pioneers ‘reinforce white supremacy’

A University of North Dakota history professor who studies the American West believes monuments depicting the pioneers “reinforce white supremacy.”

In an interview this week with KJZZ Phoenix, Cynthia Prescott (pictured) discussed her research on pioneer monuments, including a book that argues the artwork promotes “white cultural superiority” and “gender stereotypes.”

Much like with Confederate monuments, the professor said America should re-examine artwork honoring American settlers.

“A lot of people have talked about Confederate monuments in particular, as being monuments that were put up in the late 19th, early 20th centuries for the purpose of enshrining a racial hierarchy. And through my work, I argue that Western pioneer monuments were doing very similar cultural work,” she told KJZZ.

Prescott, who chairs the History and American Indian Studies Department, said the purpose of pioneer monuments was “to reinforce white supremacy over peoples of color.”

Keep reading

The Entire Cold War Was an Avoidable Mistake

The war-weary Washington policy makers were absolutely correct when they brought America’s 12 million-man expeditionary force home from Asia, Europe and the Seven Seas after August 1945. So doing, of course, they also abruptly closed the sluice-gates to what was America’s Brobdingnagian $1.7 trillion war budget in today’s dollars (FY 2025 $). But as we noted in Part 1, that figure had shrunk by a stunning 93% to just $125 billion by 1948 as post-war demobilization proceeded apace.

And well it should have. Among the burned out and exhausted lands abroad after V-E Day and V-J Day there was absolutely no military threat anywhere on the planet to the homeland security and liberty of America.

Japan’s leading cities had been fried alive by horrendous nuclear and conventional bombing assaults; Germany’s industrial and urban areas had been laid waste by bomber storms night after night for months on end; Italy had long since hung its wartime leader in a convulsion of political upheaval; France was barely functioning economically and politically after four years of brutal Nazi occupation; England was utterly bankrupt and so demoralized that its electorate had thrown its wartime leader, Winston Churchill, to the political wolves; and that is to say nothing of the prostate corpus of Stalinist Russia.

And we do mean prostrate. During WWII Soviet Russia had suffered 27 million military and civilian deaths due to bombs, bullets, starvation, disease, pestilence, atrocities and other barely imaginable inhuman afflictions. And that was atop 32,000 industrial enterprises that had been pulverized, along with upwards of 70,000 towns and villages destroyed by the marauding Nazi armies. In all, at war’s end tens of millions of Soviet citizens had been left destitute owing to the brutality of both their communist rulers at home and the German invaders who had descended upon them from the west for the second time in 25 years.

In some kind of ghoulish absolution, therefore, the slate had been wiped clean. There was not even a scant reason for American expeditionary forces to remain outside the homeland. And that’s to say nothing of maintaining bases, alliances and commitments to intervene anywhere abroad that would put American servicemen in harms’ way and involve Washington in the “entangling alliances” against which Jefferson and Washington himself had forewarned.

And yet and yet. Exactly 11 months after Hitlers’ demise at his own hand in his bunker and eight months after Armageddon had been visited upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the inveterate out-of-power war-mongering Winston Churchill delivered his “Iron Curtain” speech in Fulton Missouri. That was the opening call to the Cold War, which was powerfully seconded barely 10 months latter when the then accidental US president from the same state delivered his “Truman Doctrine” speech to a joint session of Congress. That latter was a belligerent oration which ignited the Cold War and the costly, suffocating web of entangling alliances that it fostered and the post-1947 American Empire that grew therefrom.

Keep reading

America’s Forgotten Occult Origins

The nine-week voyage of the Puritan ship the Arbella in 1630 is almost as mythologized as the Mayflower landing at Plymouth Rock. The Arbella was the ship on which Massachusetts Bay Colony’s governor John Winthrop would deliver a sermon where he declared America to be a “city on a hill.” Rediscovered by scholars in the 20th-century, Winthrop’s “A Model of Christian Charity,” with its imploration that the colonists must “labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community,” has long been interpreted as a foundational text of American identity, a veritable birth certificate for the idea of this as a redeemer nation. Figures on both the right and left, from Ronald Reagan to John F. Kennedy, have long quoted Winthrop, his invocation in the sermon conceived as one of the earliest and most potent expressions of American exceptionality. So much so that the governor is retroactively understood as a kind of de-facto founding father.

Yet alongside the governor was a very different man, his 24-year-old son John Winthrop the Younger, who had in his possession an unusual set of books which he described as a “Hogshead of Ancient papers of Value;” works such as those by the notorious English alchemist, necromancer, and occultist John Dee. Dee—the magician and court-astrologer to Elizabeth I decades before the Arbella sailed—was infamous for his supposed communications with angels in an esoteric tongue called “Enochian.”

Keep reading

Little Known Episode in U.S. History Explains Executive War Powers

Within five years of the publishing of The Federalist papers (and four years of the ratification by the states of the Constitution), the co-authors of those seminal and influential essays on American political theory and constitutional interpretation were back at their desks once again writing letters to the editors of newspapers.

This time, however, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton weren’t allies working to  to persuade others to commit to their common constitutional cause, but they were opponents, striving through their letters to reveal each other’s perceived constitutional misdeeds to the American people.

This episode in American history is known as the Pacificus-Helvidius debates, named for the pen names adopted by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively.

In the earliest days of the republic, the precise balance of powers between the legislative and executive branches in the arena of foreign affairs was unsettled. The Constitution, many argued, wasn’t clear on the point and the various views on the matter created controversy.

George Washington issued the Neutrality Proclamation of 1793 after France declared war on Holland and Great Britain. According to Washington’s way of thinking, it was in the best interest of the country to avoid war at all costs and he did not want the belligerents to be unsure of the official American position.

While certainly laudable, some of Washington’s colleagues considered the Neutrality Proclamation to be hostile to the French as it required the United States government to violate a provision of the Treaty of Alliance signed by France and the United States in 1778. Thomas Jefferson was among the most vociferous of the claque calling out Washington for allegedly violating the prior agreement.

Some of the opposition, including Jefferson and James Madison, believed that the advice and consent of the Senate should have been sought before President Washington issued any declaration of the official American position on any topic touching upon foreign affairs.

Alexander Hamilton was one of the first president’s most ardent advocates, however. And that’s where the trouble started.

Just weeks after the Neutrality Proclamation was published, Hamilton wrote a letter defending the document. Then, beginning in June 1793, he wrote an essay almost once a week, under the pen name Pacificus, in support of President Washington, his administration, and his policies.

After the seventh “Pacificus” letter was published on July 27, 1793, Thomas Jefferson wrote a now famous letter to James Madison, pleading, “my dear sir, take up your pen….”

Madison took up his pen and on the 24th of August, 1793, he responded to Hamilton’s “Pacificus” essays, using the pseudonym “Helvidius.”

In the first letter, Madison wrote that the first Pacificus essay “may prove a snare to patriotism” and warned that he (Hamilton) has advocated principles “which strike at the vitals of its constitution.”

Later in the essay, Madison recommended that in all questions concerning the correct conduct of federal officials, Americans must be guided by “our own reason and our own constitution.”

And, in a statement that is as timely now (perhaps more so) than it was then, Madison wrote that the power to declare war is “of a legislative and not an executive nature.”

Keep reading

Why We Need Revisionist History

The term “revisionism” came into use after World War I, when historians like Harry Elmer Barnes, Sidney Bradshaw Fay, and Charles Austin Beard challenged Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles, which assigned exclusive guilt to Germany and its Kaiser for the outbreak of the world war, with all its appalling destruction and massacres, It was on the basis of that clause that the Treaty imposed on Germany a Carthaginian peace, memorably condemned by J.M. Keynes in The Economic Consequences of the Peace.

Barnes and Fay felt a sense of betrayal. They had been roped into Woodrow Wilson’s crusade to “make the world safe for democracy” by the Committee on Public Information, headed by George Creel, and a similar body that coordinated the work of American historians. Now they saw the error of their ways.

World War I and the ensuing “peace” settlement paved the way for Hitler. The German people’s justified resentment over their harsh treatment led to demands to undo the Versailles verdict. The great libertarian historian Ralph Raico provides a horrifying example of Allied atrocities: “During the pre-armistice negotiations, Wilson insisted that the conditions of any armistice had to be such ‘as to make a renewal of hostilities on the part of Germany impossible.’ Accordingly, the Germans surrendered their battle fleet and submarines, some 1,700 airplanes, 5,000 artillery, 30,000 machine guns, and other materiel, while the Allies occupied the Rhineland and the Rhine bridgeheads. Germany was now defenseless, dependent on Wilson and the Allies keeping their word.

Yet the hunger blockade continued, and was even expanded, as the Allies gained control of the German Baltic coast and banned even fishing boats. The point was reached where the commander of the British army of occupation demanded of London that food be sent to the famished Germans. His troops could no longer stand the sight of hungry German children rummaging in the rubbish bins of the British camps for food Still, food was only allowed to enter Germany in March 1919, and the blockade of raw materials continued until the Germans signed the Treaty.”

Keep reading

What The Appeal To Heaven Flag Really Means

Once again cancel culture has come for another victim. This time, the political left and the media have targeted the Appeal to Heaven flag from the 1770s. The real target is Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, whose wife flew the Appeal to Heaven flag. The goal is to convince Alito to recuse himself from the presidential immunity case under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. But this flag flap is another fabrication, one that must be rebuffed.

Often, it’s hard to know what to make of these attacks on historical things or historical people. The average person usually doesn’t have a deep enough knowledge of American history to refute or evaluate historical items, people or events when they are attacked. That’s one reason why these Marxist attacks are effective. What the average person does have, however, is common sense. That’s all you need to start deciphering the Appeal to Heaven flag.

What does the pine tree mean?

In the center of the Appeal to Heaven flag is a pine tree. Back in the days of the American Revolution, Americans viewed the pine tree as a symbol of New England itself. Why? Trees were New England’s greatest natural resource. In contrast, Old England was a small island filled with people.

America had what England didn’t have: an abundance of trees. New England’s best export was lumber. Hence, New England became synonymous with trees, much like the eagle symbolizes the United States of America today.

Pine trees were featured on other flags. In the 1700s, a white flag with a red cross was the flag of St. George, who was the patron saint of England. If a St. George flag also featured a pine tree in the top left corner, then that flag signified New England.

Likewise, a solid red flag was called the British Red Ensign. If the red flag featured a pine tree in the left corner, then it signified New England instead of Old England. In multiple ways, pine trees were equivalent to New England.

Keep reading

World War I Incited the Vampires

Commentaries about World War I frequently talk about causes and consequences but almost never mention the enablers.  At best, they might mention them approvingly, as if we were fortunate to have had the Fed and the income tax, along with the ingenuity of the Liberty Bond programs, to finance our glorious role in that bloodbath.

Economist Benjamin Anderson, whose Economics and the Public Welfare has contributed greatly to our understanding of the period 1914-1946, and is a book I highly recommend, nevertheless takes as a given that the Fed and income tax had a job to do, and that job was supporting U.S. entry into World War I.  After citing figures purporting to show how relatively restrained bank credit expansion was during the war, he writes:

We had to finance the Government with its four great Liberty Loans and its short-term borrowing as well. We had to transform our industries from a peace basis to a war basis. We had to raise an army of four million men and send half of them to France. We had to help finance our allies in the war, and above all, to finance the shipment of goods to them from the United States and from a good many neutral countries. [p. 35]

We had to do none of these things.

Only the government made them necessary, and the government was not acting on behalf of its constituents when it formally entered the war in April, 1917.  The U.S. was not under serious threat of attack.  The population at large, Ralph Raico tells us, “acquiesced, as one historian has remarked, out of general boredom with peace, the habit of obedience to its rulers, and a highly unrealistic notion of the consequences of America’s taking up arms.”  Later on he reports that

In the first ten days after the war declaration, only 4,355 men enlisted; in the next weeks, the War Department procured only one-sixth of the men required.

Bored with peace they may have been, but it was hardly reflected in the number of volunteers.  For more details about US response to the war see this.

Keep reading

Ben Franklin’s Anguish: The Origin of the Modern Vaccine Cult

It’s tough to argue with the vast historical literature documenting that smallpox was indeed a dreadful scourge. During the 18th century, the British Colonies in America were repeatedly struck with outbreaks that killed up to 30% of those infected. Within this context, the procedure known as inoculation became an increasingly accepted though extremely controversial practice. Indeed, today’s conflict between vaccine advocates and skeptics strongly resembles the 18th century controversy over smallpox inoculation.

This essay is NOT an attempt to settle the 18th century debate over smallpox inoculation, but to give a striking illustrative example of why inoculation as a practice became the object of such fervent emotion. In the 18th century, smallpox was a common cause of child mortality, and as anyone who has ever lost a child can tell you, the experience is probably the worst thing that can happen to man or woman who has become a parent. Watching a child die of a terrible disease would likely test the religious faith of a saint by raising the question: If God cares about me and my wife, why would he allow our beloved child to suffer a terrible death before our very eyes?Corsi Ph.D., Jerome R.Buy New $21.59(as of 04:44 UTC – Details)

Among the Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin probably had the most wide-ranging curiosity and interest in solving practical problems. For most of his adult life, he was haunted by the death of his second son, Francis Folger Franklin. As described in the 2011 New York Times essay, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Vaccines, by Howard Markel, MD.

Franky, as his parents called him, was born in 1732 a golden child, his smiles brighter, his babblings more telling and his tricks more magical than all the other infants in the colonies combined. Benjamin advertised for a tutor when the boy was only 2.

When he died of smallpox at age 4, the Franklins were beyond condolence. His tombstone was inscribed, “The delight of all who knew him.”

Rumors abounded that Franky had died from an inoculation gone awry. The gossip led the grieving Franklin to declare that his son had never been inoculated because he was suffering from “flux,” or protracted diarrhea. Franklin insisted that Franky “receiv’d the distemper” smallpox “in the common way of infection…

Following this terrible experience, Franklin became of the most tireless advocates of smallpox inoculation in the colonies.

In their magisterial work of medical history, , authors Roman Bystrianyk (Author), Dr. Suzanne Humphries make a compelling case that smallpox inoculation advocates such as Franklin were mistaken in their belief that inoculation was truly safe and beneficial. I suspect it would be very difficult to settle this controversy once and for all, as both the natural infection and the inoculation procedure were ghastly with high rates of mortality.

Nevertheless, it’s easy to understand why Benjamin Franklin would place enormous interest and hope in smallpox inoculation. After all, smallpox was a scourge against which humanity perceived itself to be helpless. As imperfect as it was, inoculation seemed to offer at least some hope. And as we have all experienced when faced with a fearful prospect, doing something to try to improve our odds often strikes us as better than nothing. For many reasonable people, gambling on the inoculation therefore seemed like a risk worth taking.

Keep reading

THE MOST SHOCKING STORIES OF HUMAN SACRIFICE IN HISTORY

To many of us in the modern world, the idea of human sacrifice seems so strange and distant that it may as well be part of some half-remembered myth. Yet, there’s no ignoring the evidence left by societies across time and the globe: human sacrifice really did happen. Whether it’s physical clues excavated by archaeologists or written records from alleged eyewitnesses to sacrificial rituals, the sheer volume of it all means that we simply have to acknowledge that human sacrifice has happened.

That great number of cases also means that some sacrificial practices stand out for a variety of shocking reasons. A few are notable for the confounding number of people who may have been subjected to life-ending rituals, while others garner attention for the unique and protracted sequence of events that got people to a sacrificial site. For instance, the Incan children who were subject to mountaintop sacrifices now known as capacocha often went through months of good treatment and ritual preparation after they were selected for the rite, followed by a long hike to a cold and distant peak. Yet more cases of sacrifice have gone down in history for the striking ways in which remains were treated during or after the rite, leaving future humans to uncover the results centuries after the sacrifice was over and archaeologists to puzzle over their findings for generations.

Keep reading