Michael BaroneRecensioni

1/22/23

From 2004, this is a dated work. The craziness of the Bush years was only about to come (remember Bushitler?). People still overwhelmingly approved of the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) and the downturn of 2008 hadn't happened yet. Barone is a tad rosy in his conclusions. But, the Softness—to use his term—of the Obama years was about to come. New entitlements, endless "infrastructure projects," bailouts, boondoggles (does anyone remember Solyndra?), and the birth of what was going to turn into B.L.M. and C.R.T. and transgressiveness galore. But, to what Barone wrote. Basically, America was Hard in the late 1800s to early 1900s: tough, no welfare, no safety net, no regulations, etc. Then, starting in the New Deal, through the War, through to the Great Society, we added a whole bunch of Soft: welfare, entitlements, regulatory state, welfare capitalism, Big Business, coddling schools and government, etc. But, then the late 1960s and 1970s America frayed to almost the point of no return, with crime rampant into the 1980s and drugs (like crack) and welfare dependency destroying sectors of society. Hardness started to come back with Reagan in the 1980s, tough on crime policies in the 1980s to the 1990s, and even Clinton reforming welfare and declaring that "the era of Big Government" is over. Then 9/11. Along the way Barone makes trenchant observations about culture, discusses economics, politics, and statistics. It's a good book to conceptualize a good chunk of the twentieth century, useful for professor of American history, I'd say. But, we are still soft. Other, less slick thinkers might say decadent. And the book thus seems incomplete or hopelessly hopeful. But, perhaps I should've read it in 2004 instead of hanging onto it for fifteen years or so before getting around to reading it.

Did not finish. See Pflentov's 12/16/09 review.

This is about the events leading up to the "Glorious" or "Bloodless" British revolution of 1688-1689. The author believes this revolution was vital for the American Revolution a hundred years later, though it's not until the last couple of chapters that he explains how. The book is mostly about the scheming and interplay between King Charles II of Britain, who tried to remain pragmatic, tolerant, and not beheaded like his father; his ebullient brother James, Duke of York (and New York City's namesake), whose conversion to Catholicism worried many; the taciturn Prince William III of Orange, who led the quasi-federal United Provinces of the Netherlands and wanted to use Britain in his war against France; and King Louis XIV of France, the Darth Vader of Europe of who liked to keep everyone on their toes.

It's a pretty interesting read about a little-discussed subject, and helped fill gaps in my knowledge of European history. Ultimately, it makes a good case for how the Glorious Revolution had unintended and lasting reverberations that shaped Britain's and America's laws, political systems, economies, and foreign policies.

I'll mention a couple of gripes. They are too minor to expound upon, but I enjoy being petty.
- Chapter 8, bottom of page 202: While discussing the passage of the Toleration Act, the book says "The Devil Tavern Club group was in accord, and William gave his consent on May 24." Um, what was the Devil Tavern Club group? The author never explains this and doesn't mention it again. It's not listed in the index, and the endnote just references some other book I don't have, so no help there. All I can ascertain from a little Googling is that the Devil Tavern Club was a group of some 200 Parliamentarians, named after the Devil Tavern that was a popular hangout for these idiots.
- Chapter 10, page 241: While talking about how the Glorious Revolution led to Britain and America practicing balance-of-power to contain foreign hegemonies, the book says "Then, after September 11, 2001, the United States with Britain among many others on its side, found itself at war with Islamofascist terrorists, believers in a totalitarian ideology seeking weapons of mass destruction and determined to inflict terrible damage on the democratic and tolerant West." Sheesh! For a Fox News commentator, the author manages to keep his book free of frothy conservative nonsense, but he slips up here. The post-9/11 global war on terror is a lousy example of balance of power. If Britain and America really cared about containing the growing Islamofascist hegemony (which they helped establish in the first place), they wouldn't have waited until 9/11 to do so.

Finally, though this is well beyond the scope of the book, it made me reflect on how Western Europe was in a constant state of war for a thousand years, often because of religion. It wasn't until the end of World War II that Europeans became tired of fighting and started embracing peace, democracy, and secularism.

A competent, engaging, and thorough review of the Glorious Revolution from an American perspective, with emphasis on how it influenced 1776.½

History at its best. When I first read the title to this book I couldn't help but thinking, "huh." Once I started the book though I was able to connect the dots and I learned a ton of history. Anytime reading about European roalty it can be enormously confusing, but Barone walks us through the roalty labyrinth with clarity. I also like reading Barone's weekly article and blog writing. Keen insight into to todays political environment.

I once had a teacher who objected to the whole "melting pot" analogy, saying a tossed salad was a more apt comparison since the identity of the ingredients/immigrants wasn't changed. It was an idea that went over most high-school heads about 30 years ago, but I've pondered on it from time to time in conjuction with my own observations. And Michael Barone points out rather well how the various surges or waves of immigration haven't necessarily melted into the whole but have still left their mark on the country and its politics.

Barone covers six distinct and large surges of migration that starts with the Scots-Irish who pushed the colonization further south and west in throught the mid-1700s. Next he looks at two internal migrations as "Yankees" in the north and "Southern Grandees" in the south both began to push westward as eastern populations increased. Next are the Irish and German migrations that happened as a result of the potato famines in Europe and lasted from the mid-1800s nearly to 1900, when the "Ellis Island" migration took over with Italians and Eastern Europeans. The next surge is mostly from rural areas to cities and resulted in a smaller migration of blacks from the South to the North. He also covers the almost "melting pot" influence of WWII and the move westward (especially to California) and the latest migrations from Asia and Mexico. With each section he explores the effects migrations had on politics and public policies.

This is not a page-turner kind of book. Instead, with heavy sections of statistics (and quite a few statistical maps) it's almost borderline reference material. But at the same time his explanations of why people came from where they did, why they settled where they did, and how they impacted the country politically and socially are extremely readable. From someone who enjoys reading American history, I found it very enlightening, plus, as someone whose forebears came from about 7 or 8 different European countries (yes, I'm an American mutt) it was insightful to better understand why some of my ancestors came. It's not the kind of book that will have broad appeal among all those who read history, but it's a fascinating account of how the country has been shaped by immigrants and really helps one to understand the big picture a little better.

A good book on the 1680s outing of King James by William of Orange leading to the reign of William and Mary.

Well-known political journalist Michael Barone plunges into the armchair history genre with Our First Revolution: The Remarkable British Upheaval That Inspired America's Founding Fathers (Crown, 2007). Drawing on existing secondary sources, Barone has written a concise and interesting account of England's Glorious Revolution, when the Protestant William of Orange overthrew England's King James II in 1688-89 in what Barone says is "the first change of government to be called a revolution" by those who lived through it (pg. 2-3).

The majority of the book treats the history of England in the years following the Restoration, the immediate leadup to William's invasion, and the Glorious Revolution's aftermath. Barone cogently discusses the religious and political turmoil that gripped the British Isles during these decades, and although he breaks little new ground, his discussions are worthwhile for their synthesis of previous research.

Barone's sections on William's skillful and brilliant use of printed propaganda before and during the Glorious Revolution were of great interest, and I wished he'd expanded them. Likewise, given the subtitle it might have been appropriate to provide a fuller examination of the contemporary impact of the Revolution on the American colonies (two paragraphs and then a short concluding chapter form most of this discussion), rather than simply linking the 1688-89 Revolution with America's own struggle decades later.

Slightly flawed, but nonetheless a readable introduction to the period and an excellent analysis of the parliamentary elections from the 1660s through the 1690s.

http://philobiblos.blogspot.com/2007/06/book-review-our-first-revolution.html

This is the bible of American congressional politics. Every two years since 1972, National Journal has published the Almanac of American Politics, a state-by-state guide to federal elected officials. Each Senator and Representative is profiled, along with the state and district that he/she represents. In addition, there is a profile of the governor. The volume contains demographics from the most recent census, recent election results, and current congressional district maps. The analysis is non-partisan (though this does not necessarily mean unbiased), a welcome relief from the hostile partisan atmosphere currently found in Washington. One note of caution: the almanac is published in the middle of the year **prior** to the date, so election returns are from the previous election (e.g., the 2006 edition has results from 2004). In all, an essential reference tool for anyone interested in United States politics.½

I suppose you could just read about The Glorious Revolution on a cake, but this book is easier to travel with, and slightly more detailed.


This book covers "The Glorious Revolution", which sounds like something out of Communist China, but actually happened in England in 1688.



Background information:

Just a quick blurb about King Charles I here. He reigned from 1625-1649. It ended badly when he got into a fight with Parliament about whether he was allowed to levy further taxes without their approval. Also, it didn't help his popularity that he married a Catholic, when he was the head of the Anglican Church. To justify all this, he argued the "Divine Right of Kings" (i.e. kings can do whatever the fuck they want, no questions asked), but lacking popular support as well as the support of the monied interests in Parliament, the dispute broke out into open conflict between factions of the army loyal to the king, and those loyal to Parliament. Long story short: he lost, was executed, and England fell under rule of the military dictator "Lord Protector" Oliver Cromwell. Charles I's two sons, Charles II and James went into exile.

Cromwell died young (59) of natural causes, in 1658... and the public, who didn't like the military dictatorship as much as they thought they would, clamored for restoration of the monarchy (but a weak one, if you please). So Charles II was crowned.



Two Brothers and a Sister:

Charles II reigned 1660-1685. A few things about his rule: he wrested control of New Amsterdam from the Dutch, expelled then-governor Peter Stuyvesant, and renamed the town after his brother, the Duke of York: NEW YORK. (my kinda town)
Also, he granted a large chunk of land to William Penn in 1681... Pennsylvania. So that was cool.

He banged a whole slew of chicks and had some illegitimate kids, but nobody eligible to succeed him to the crown. He died of a stroke at age 54, and the throne fell to his brother James.

Problem with James was that in a predominantly Anglican country, he decided to follow in his mother's footsteps and convert to Catholicism. That would be no big deal today, but the author goes to pains to show how much of 17th century politics was "Team Catholic vs. Team Protestant". Standard human folly bullshit; nothing to see here.

James agreed not to impose his chosen religion on everybody else, and refrained from meddling in the Church of England affairs... except one thing. He was trying to get friends and supporters of his elected to Parliament, but there was a ban on Catholics running for office. He put out a very reasonable-sounding declaration of religious tolerance, which -by the way- would also let Catholics run for office. The country responded entirely reasonably: "OMFG!!! THE CATHOLICS ARE TAKING OVER!!!" So James, like his father, got into a big fight with Parliament.

Oh, did I mention that Charles II and James had a sister, Mary? Yeah, she got married to Willaim II, Soveriegn Prince of the Principality Orange, in the Netherlands. I can't make heads or tails of what was up with the Netherlands during this period. They got free from Spain, they had a war with France and got split up into different states (including one named Zeeland, which it seems like New Zealand must be named after, even though it wasn't a Dutch colony..?)

Interesting aside: The College of William and Mary is a well-regarded college down in Virginia, but I never knew who it was referring to. Turns out, it's William II ("William of Orange") and Mary, sister of King Charles II.





William II died young (24) in 1650, but not before having a son- William III- nephew to King Charles II and James. Mary died in 1660, when William III was just ten. To make things confusing, William III married his first cousin- also named Mary- daughter of his uncle, King James of England. There are too many people named William and named Mary in this book.

In 1688, William III was 38 and eyeing all this kerfuffle going on with his uncle James. William III figured that if James went down, the next in line to the throne would have been his mother, Mary, if she were alive. Since she wasn't, the next in line would be King James' eldest, William III's wife Mary. William figured he could rule as a powerful King Consort, really a de facto King Regnant.

There was an illigitimate son of Charles II, which makes all of this more complicated, but you can read the book to get that info.



CONSPIRACY!:

NOTE- I know some of you out there don't believe in conspiracy theories, so you might want to skip this part. Of course it's all established fact now, but if you would have heard it in 1688, it would have been a conspiracy theory.

So while King James was squaring off against Parliament in 1688, a bunch of the wealthiest nobles got together and decided to depose him and re-establish Parliamentary rule (hopefully sans military dictator this time). The secret group comprised seven of the country's largest landowners, later refered to as the "Immortal Seven", as well as about thirty high-ranking military officers who could be counted on to support them. (thirty-seven conspirators?! IMPOSSIBLE!! Surely somebody would have talked...) An Admiral Herbert and Baron Churchill (a direct ancestor of Prime Minister Winston Churchill) were dispatched to Holland to meet with Willaim of Orange.
Depending on who you believe, they either said:

"Please, please come be our king! England has been loving you from afar for years, so what are you waiting for? Come be our king!"

or

"Listen, this revolution is going down with or without you, but parliamentary rule didn't go so well last time we tried it. We think the public might swallow it better if there were a figurehead king. Since you're married to James' daughter, and you're his nephew, your name naturally came up as a candidate. We'll bring you onboard, but at a price: you have to supply some ships and troops to our cause."

I know which story I believe.

Anyhow, William III of Orange supplied 21,000 troops to the revolution, shipped them in the notoriously perilous November waters of the English Channel, and so intimidated James that he fled for his life without a fight.

One minor digression: William hired some troops for this event from the Germanic kingdom of Brandenburg (later called "Prussia"). The author mentions how Brandenburg was the most religiously tolerant kingdom in Europe at that time, and how the much-abused Heugonauts, assorted out-of-favor Protestant sects, and Jews were all welcomed into Prussian society during the 1680s. I couldn't help but think that so many of the Jewish familys who were welcomed in the seventeenth century must later have perished in the twentieth.

Anyhow, that's how William of Orange got to be King William III of England... if you believe conspiracy theories, that is. If you don't, I guess none of this stuff really happened, and William of Orange must have become king some other way.



Conspiracies don't happen!!! There's GOT to be a more reasonable explanation!!!!



King William's rule:

Being in a stronger position than he expected, William demanded that Parliament give him the crown outright- rather than crown Mary and let him rule in practice. His concern demanding this is that if Mary died before him, the crown would go to his daughter. Parliament agreed, but with a caviat: he had to accept an ironclad Declaration of Rights, which spelled some innovations (or variants thereof) which have become staples in modern democracies: the King is not an absolute monarch, laws are only passed with Parliamentary ratification; the King does not command a standing army as his own personal fighting force- the nation's army conducts war at the behest of Parliament, after war is declared by due process, not royal decree; justice is administered by due process, not royal decree/fiat; prisoners' right of habeas corpus may not be violated by the King; the King can not overrule decisions of the courts; etc.

The book details it out much more finely, but you can see how this parliamentary move resulted in the shaping of Western democratic thought, and obviously inspired the architects of our American Constitution.

Why did William III accept these limitations? For one thing, the seventeenth century now had two examples of how kings can be toppled if they oppose the popular will, as well as the will of the upper classes, who hold a lot of Parliamentary power. For another thing, William did have a legitimacy issue, which could be magnified if he ran afowl of Parliament. He was being given the crown, but his rule contradicted traditional lines of succession, and this would always be a liability hanging over his head.

Aside from all that domestic realpolitic, William was concerned with balancing France's awesome power in Europe with a coalition of Protestant states. He wanted domestic peace in a Protestant England, so it could participate in effectively containing the French. If agreeing to the parliamentary Declaration of Rights would buy domestic tranquility, he was prepared to accept it.

On the down side, William III presided over the creation of England's central banking system, and the establishment of the notorious Bank of England, modeled after the similar Bank of Amsterdam. Naturally, soon to follow was creation of a British national debt.



What's so Glorious about it?

The promotional blurbs on the back jacket imply that without the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the Amerian Revolution of 1776 would never have been possible.

I think it is a reasonable thought. If King James had not been overthrown, it seems likely he could have packed Parliament with the friends and yes-men he was aiming to. Essentially, The author's thesis is that James wanted to model his rule on the absolutist monarchy of his contemporary, Louis XIV of France. Parliament in this system would serve an advisory function, or could be done away with entirely, as the king saw fit. If this system had persisted to 1776, colonists would never have been able to make a legal or philosophical argument that Parliament had no right to tax them without representation. The reigning king of the day could have simply said "It is my will", and that would have been that.

Sure, colonists could have still rebelled, but the other big factor to consider is France. King James was quite close with Louis XIV, and saw a British-French partnership as a solid foundation to security and peace in a (pan-Catholic?) Europe. If both England and France had had Catholic absolutist monarchies in 1776, it is extremely unlikely that the French would have entered the American Revolution on the side of the rebelling colonists- a decisive factor in the war.

Moreover, if England and France had had an enduring partnership, the Seven Years War (aka The French and Indian War) would likely not have taken place, or at least would not have played out in North America the way it did. As elaborated in [book:The Glorious Cause|10767457], that conflict set the stage for the American Revolution. Without it, American independence would have been a very remote possibility.



Wait! There's more!
If it seems like I've given away all the best parts, be assured there are a lot of facets to this history, which I haven't covered, and which will amaze and astonish you:


1) How could William III have known that the powerful King Louis XIV of France would not intervene to support Britian, or- worse yet- attack Holland while the Dutch army was abroad?

2) Of what importance to this story is the Turks' attack on Vienna in 1674?

3) What are the crazy rumors surrounding King James' son?

4) Dazzling descriptions of King James' legendary sinonasal infections, in which blood and pus spurted from his nose.

5) What affect did a bishop dying in Cologne a year before have on the revolution ?

6) Why didn't William III have King James executed?

7) Why were Dutch ships ordered to fly British flags during the attack?

8) By what convoluted logic were other European monarchs not bothered by this overthrow of a king?

9) How does the author- who did a good job on this book overall- make himself sound ridiculous on the final two pages, by comparing Louis XIV to Osama bin Laden?

and 10) What did 20th century British Prime Minister Winston Churchill think of his ancestor, the Baron Chruchill?



History is all complicated-like.

True Story:


There is a local chain of cafes around Washington DC, by the name of "William III". So about 10 years ago, I was taking part in an accreditation inspection of a hospital in Maryland. The inspection team was composed of about 15 inspectors, of which I was one, and the hospital had 15 representatives who would accompany us throughout the hospital, and who would assist us getting the information we needed to determine whether the hospital met professional standards. So the hospital rep assigned to me was this really gregarious guy who would not stop talking. I can only take so much of that; I tend to be introverted, and people like that just suck the life out of me. As we were walking around, he kept prodding me "Ask me anything- anything at all. I've been working here for thirty years. There's nothing in this hospital I don't know about." Just as he said that, though, we happened to be standing near a William III coffee stand. Accepting his challenge, I pointed to the stand and said "Okay- that coffee stand is in your hospital. Who is this William III it's named after, and why would somebody name a coffee stand after him?"

Like myself, until I read this book, he had no idea, and it completely deflated him. He sulked about that the rest of the day, which was a welcome change from the aggressive chattiness. I guess it was kind of a dick thing to ask him, but I can't stand people who never shut up, so if I had it to do over again, I definitely would.

reason.tv talk show ep. 15