The “Old West” in the “New West.”

Posted on June 11, 2026 by jsh54

A bunch of strands run together in Prescott, Arizona. William Prescott (1726-1795) farmed in Massachusetts and served in the militia in a bunch of small-scale wars. Then he commanded the American troops at Bunker Hill. His grandson, another William Prescott (1796-1859), made himself into America’s first great historian. Possessed of rare intelligence and determination, he struggled against gravely defective eyesight. He chose as his subject the Spanish rampage through the America’s in the early 1500s. In his books, handfuls of bold men fired by religious conviction and greed launch themselves into the South American wilderness. Vastly out-numbered and far from home, they conquered the Aztec and Inca Empires. The first fruits of victory—gold–fell to these “conquistadors,” but over the long run their conquests enriched their homeland. Prescott had a brilliant writing style. More importantly, 19^th Century Americans thought that he spoke directly to them.

By the 1830s, the mountain men had trapped out the Rockies, then fell to other work. Mostly this meant scouting for the Army and guiding Westward-bound “pilgrims.” Joe Walker (1798-1876) fit this mold. His expertise lay in the mountains of the Southwest. In 1863 he led a party of gold-hunters into the mountains of West Central Arizona. They found gold, so more prospectors arrived. The Apache Wars brought an Army fort. A mining camp more than a town, but in 1864 it became the chosen site of the territorial capital. What to call it? Prescott, after William Prescott the historian.[1] The rough-and-ready town prospered. Then the gold and silver played out; the Apache were defeated; and the state capital moved away.

The old town is the location for two good movies about the “New West.” Prescott has revived, in part thanks to tourism. It hosts “Frontier Days,” which includes a rodeo that has run continuously since 1888 and which pulls in 30,000 visitors. In “Junior Bonner” (dir. Sam Peckinpah, 1972), Steve McQueen plays a rodeo cowboy on the downslope of his career. He returns home to Prescott in stubborn pursuit of one more chance to ride a bull that has thrown him before. His father is an old-fashioned boom-and-bust prospector; his brother is a money-hungry property developer selling nostalgia. His sister-in-law tells him derisively “He’s working on his first million and you’re still trying for eight seconds.”[2] Bonner refuses a chance to move into management, punches his brother, rides the bull, and spends his prize money on a one-way ticket to Australia for his father.[3]

Prescott also shows the dangers of development pushing towns out into Nature. In “Only the Brave” (dir. Joseph Kosinski, 2017), wildland fire is a constant from the Rockies westward. On the news you see reporters in spotless yellow Nomex shirts and guys in dirty yellow Nomex shirts. Never pictured are the “Hotshots” who do the real work cutting containment lines close to the fire. Twenty-person crews with chain saws and shovels working 12-hour days. It builds pride and comradeship among tough people far from the limelight. The movie portrays the redemptive powers of comradeship among people sharing hard experiences. Brendan McDonough is leading a disastrous life: drugs, indolence, lies, theft, and a pregnant ex-girlfriend all come together. Hitting bottom, he applies for a job with the Prescott-based “Granite Mountain Hotshots.” The job and the people start him on a new life. McDonough gets bitten by a rattlesnake. At the hospital, he opts to take the pain, rather than blunt it with drugs. Soon afterward, the crew is sent to fight a fire named for Yarnell Hill near Prescott. Still lame from the snakebite, McDonough is detached to fire-spotting. While he is away, the fire suddenly overruns his crew. Nineteen men are killed. They died together, doing work that gave their lives meaning. But the heartbreak among their families and friends and community is terrible. “And I alone am left.”[4]

Both movies center on the survival of “Old West” values in a modern world that seems to lack—and miss—them.

[1] The name was suggested by Richard McCormick, the secretary to the territorial governor. A sickly child, McCormick had read a great deal in bed and well-plumped chairs. Subsequently, he became a war correspondent, frontier newspaperman, and politician. “We see how he comes over us with our wilder days,…”

[2] The time he has to stay on the bull to win the big buckle.

[3] See: Monte Walsh – The Cowboy Life

[4] 1 Kings, 19: 10.

Cubism 90 miles from our shores.

Posted on June 1, 2026 by jsh54

Communism failed in Cuba long ago. From early on, the Cuban “Revolution” had to be subsidized by the Soviet Union. That covered over many of the economic failings of a centrally-planned mono-crop agricultural economy. The political failings were covered over by prisons and forced emigration. Then the Soviet Union collapsed, the subsidies ended, and Cuban went into a downward spiral. Conditions of life for ordinary Cubans have grown worse and worse. All sorts of things were going wrong before President Trump’s recent blockade: rice production was falling; the electricity generation was falling, causing rolling blackouts; the predominance of sugar cultivation limited how much food farmers could produce. Only an oil subsidy from Venezuela kept anything functioning.[1]

President Donald Trump is a lame-duck. That means he’s free to try anything he wants.[2] With regard to Cuba, he seems to want the Communist regime gone. He got the successors to Maduro in Venezuela to turn off the oil tap. Now, Cuba has run out of diesel and fuel oil, and gas stations are closed. Garbage trucks can’t collect, so piles of trash line the streets in Havana and elsewhere. Most of the electricity is turned off for most of the day to most of the people. “Communism has ended light pollution!”

The director if the Central Intelligence Agency, John Ratcliffe, paid a call on the Cuban government. The US would give Cuba $100 million in aid. There was a catch: “new people” have to be put in place to carry out “meaningful reforms.” That is, “y’all need to bolt to Spain and right quick.” He got no takers.

Hamas in Gaza, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela, and Cuba: dictatorships are willing to allow intense harm to their “citizens” so long as they can hold onto power.

If Communism could collapse from a mere lack of popular support, it would have done so many years ago. It is likely to collapse from an upsurge of public anger and action over the failures of the Revolution. Should the United States be trying to hustle forward that collapse? The collapse might be preceded or accompanied by a gigantic boatlift of refugees. That would not accord with closing the southern border. In Madrid cafes, Cuban Communists are going to blame the US for all their problems anyway, so why not? Progressives will argue that overthrowing Cuban Communism creates a moral obligation to help on the part of the United States. Moral obligation probably isn’t the first thought to occur to the Trump Whitehouse.

Viewed from an international relations perspective, Trump appears to be pursuing a “spheres of influence” approach. He has yarded Nicholas maduro (and his wife) out of their palace in their jammies in order to put them on trial in New York. He’s been trying to (and maybe succeeding) put the fear of God and the United States into Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum over government complicity in the drug trade. Now he seems ready to bulldoze Cuba over the brink. All Western hemisphere countries. Meanwhile, he’s less forthright in support of Ukraine and Taiwan. They’re in Eastern Europe and the Far East. Perhaps that’s forcing things into a pattern that doesn’t exist.

[1] “Cuba: Barely holding on as Trump turns out the lights,” and “Cuba: Trump’s next takeover target,” The Week, 29 May 2026, pp. 14, 17.

[2] He doesn’t seem deeply concerned abut the impact of his actions on the electability of other Republicans.

To the victor belong the spoils.

Posted on May 27, 2026 by jsh54

The title comes from a quote attributed to Senator William Marcy (D-NY). It refers to the idea that loyalty to and support for a political candidate should receive material reward if the candidate is elected.[1] American politics was rife with it from the Colonial period onward. Perhaps its best-known practitioner was President Andrew Jackson (1767-1845, President 1829-1837). “Old Hickory” richly reward his “friends,” whether personally known or unknown to him. This “spoils system” continued to staff the federal, state, and city bureaucracies well past the end of the Civil War. As someone later said, “Power grows from the barrel of a pork.”

As time passed, a reaction took place. More and more people grew unhappy with the services of a government manned by idiot nephews and political hacks. The campaign for a merit-based system took a while to achieve success. In the meantime it was derided as “snivel service reform.” The first breakthrough came with the Pendleton Civil Service Act (1883). OK, this took a demented office-seeker (Charles Guiteau[2]) shooting President James A. Garfield. Thereafter, reformers continued their campaign at the federal, state, and local levels of government. The United States ended up with a professional, merit-based civil service which was the envy of many places in the world.[3]

Donald Trump and “Trumpism” bear more than a passing resemblance to Andrew Jackson and “Jacksonianism.”[4] During his first term, Trump refused to release his tax returns. No law required him to do so, and tax-payer information is required to be kept confidential by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). However, it had become a custom for presidential candidates to release such information in the name of “transparency.” Liberal journals of opinion[5] severely criticized Trump’s refusal. Then someone in the employ of the IRS leaked some of Trump’s tax returns. These were published and analyzed.

Then came Trump’s contesting the election results of 2020, 6 January 2021, and the attempted prosecution of Trump and associates on charges of election-interference, paying “hush money,” retaining official documents, and fraud.

Jump ahead to Trump’s second term.[6] He sued the IRS for $10 billion over the leaked tax returns. Then he agreed to settle the matter with his own Justice Department. There are two parts to the settlement. First, creation of a tax-payer funded settlement fund to pay people who were victims of “lawfare” by the Biden administration. Neither the president nor his family may receive money from the fund. The value of the fund is patriotically-valued at $1.776 billion. Second, the IRS can’t pursue “any and all” pending tax claims against the president, his family, or his businesses.

The fund has not been well-received by Democrats and many Republicans. Some critics lambast the possibility of the 6 January rioters getting “compensated.” Others point out that Trump’s money-making in office uses the same shady practices he’s often used in business.

We have laws because good judgement and common decency often are lacking.

[1] Ari Hoogenboom, Outlawing the Spoils: A History of the Civil Service Reform Movement, 1865-1883 (1961).

[2] Like many people in history, Guiteau was too strange for fiction.

[3] But not Britain, Germany, or France.

[4] The Worst President Ever 5 July 2019. | waroftheworldblog

[5] The Opinion section of the NYT, Stephen Colbert, etc. Alas, George Carlin was dead. Our loss.

[6] “Outrage erupts over Trump’s ‘slush fund’ for allies,” The Week, 29 May 2026

Federal Mandates as a Flash Point.

Posted on May 12, 2026 by jsh54

Nearly half (46 percent) of Americans “believe the facts on vaccines are up for debate and that it’s damaging to mandate shots.” Furthermore, almost half (49 percent) of Republicans “say the return of vaccine-preventable diseases is a price worth paying for the ability to refuse shots.”[1] Are Republicans serious about this position? If so, they themselves never had any of a bunch of vaccine-preventable childhood diseases.[2]

Yes and No, probably. First, No. A recent poll showed that 67 percent of Republicans “support the use of vaccines to prevent disease.”[3] On the one hand, that means that a full third of Republicans don’t “support the use of vaccines to prevent disease.” On the other hand, 67 percent favor vaccines, while 49 percent oppose mandated vaccines. Apparently (67 – 49 = 18 percent) of Republicans accept mandated vaccines, while 49 – 33 = 16 percent) are opposed to mandates rather than vaccines. If it wasn’t mandated, then of course they’d get the shots.

Second, Yes. The figures above still leave 33 percent of Republicans, 28 percent of Independents, and 7 percent of Democrats who don’t believe in vaccines. Odd, no?

How did the mandate part of the vaccination issue come to be so contested? One possible answer goes back to the Affordable Care Act. A lot of people didn’t have health insurance. Some were young and healthy, so they didn’t want to spend the money. Some were a range of ages, unhealthy, and poor. They wanted health insurance, but either it wasn’t provided through their work or they didn’t make enough to pay for insurance. What to do? The answer was to require everyone to have health insurance and require insurance companies to insure everyone. The ones who didn’t need the insurance would bulk up insurance company earnings and cover those who did need it, but couldn’t pay.

This began as a Republican idea, then was taken over by the Democrats. So it was the Democrats who caught Hell for it. Never before had the federal government required that people buy something that they didn’t want. The mandate could be compared to “compelled speech.” The Supreme Court had already held that compelled speech violates the First Amendment.[4] Schools can’t make students recite the Pledge of Allegiance and states can’t compel anti-abortion “crisis centers” to post notices of abortion services. What’s the difference?

In some minds, the insurance mandate may have seemed wrong in its own right, and an entering wedge precedent for a huge extension of government power over individual lives. What else might follow in time? The revolt against vaccines may have amounted to a Libertarian response to an arrogant government. Not many Libertarians among the Democrats.

[1] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 24 April 2026, p. 17. The figures come from a Politico/Public First poll.

[2] I have. Came down with chicken-pox during the rehearsal for the Christmas concert of my elementary school. Vomited all over the back of the white shirt of the kid in front of me. Then there was the girl who walked with leg braces and crutches because she had been hit by polio. This was long before the Americans with Disabilities Act, so I still remember her laboring up the steps from the front door.

[3] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 19 September 2026, p. 17. The figures for Independents were 72 percent, and for Democrats 93 percent. That means that 28 percent of Independents and 7 percent of Democrats don’t “support the use of vaccines to prevent disease.”

[4] Later, in “Janus v. AFSCME,” the Court held that “the First Amendment does not permit the government to compel a person to pay for another party’s speech just because the government thinks that the speech furthers the interests of the person who does not want to pay.”

“War solves nothing.”

Posted on May 5, 2026 by jsh54

In the 1770s, the British North American colonies accepted continuing British rule. They formed an association which became Baja Canada.

In 1861, the larger association of Baja Canada, with the approval of Great Britain, allowed the peaceful secession of its Southern members.

The new Confederate States of America preserved its beloved traditions of human slavery and White supremacy.

Slavery proved to be highly adaptable as an economic institution. For example, the very productive automobile plants of North and South Carolina and Tennessee are now worked by slave labor.

During the first half of the 20th Century, Germany united and reorganized Continental Europe as “Germania.” During the second half of the 20th Century, China united and reorganized the Far East as “Redasia.”

All of this was accomplished without the resort to actual WAR.

Tip of the Iceberg: Budget Reconciliation.

Posted on April 29, 2026 by jsh54

The 100-member Senate normally requires 60 votes to pass legislation. In an era of deep partisan division, it is difficult to assemble such a “super-majority.” The “Congressional Budget Act of 1974” created a device to by-pass this obstacle.[1] It is called “Reconciliation.” This device requires only 51 votes to pass certain specific kinds of legislation related to the budget. What are the basic rules of “Reconciliation”? First, the required 51 votes can consist of 51 Senators, or of 50 Senators plus the vote of the Vice President. Second, the bills must deal with a) mandatory spending, b) revenue, or c) the federal debt limit. The bills can also deal with more than one of these categories in the same bill. Third, the Senate can pass one bill dealing with each of these categories each year. Fourth, non-budget issues are excluded; changes to Social Security are excluded; and the bill must not increase the federal debt after 10 years.[2]

Two recent bills passed by means of “Reconciliation” are worth noting. The first is the “American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.”[3] The bill proposed spending $1.9 trillion to accelerate recovery from the economic effects of the COVID 19 pandemic and the related recession. The bill raised taxes on some wealthy individuals and on some corporations. The tax increases were projected to raise $60 billion in revenue. That is, it proposed to spend $1.84 trillion not covered by revenue. The bill ticked a lot of Democratic social policy boxes. Republicans criticized it from an economic perspective: it was labeled a ‘stimulus” bill when such “stimulus” was not longer needed. They may have had a point. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco later (2022) calculated that the “American Rescue Plan Act of 2021,” in combination with the earlier “CARES Act” (2020) raised the core inflation rate by 3 percent by the end of 2021.

The second bill is the “Inflation Reduction Act” (2022).[4] Key elements of the bill addressed salient Democratic concerns: lowering prescription drug prices and fostering “green” energy. The bill proposed substantially less spending than did the “American Rescue Plan”: $891 billion. It also proposed to raise much more revenue from taxes on the wealthy: $738 billion. Thus, it spent $1.53 billion more than it took in. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the “Inflation Reduction Act” would not reduce inflation in 2022 or 2023. The Tax Policy Center[5] estimated that the top 1 percent of taxpayers would see a 0.2 percent increase in their tax rate, and the 80-99^th percentile a 0-0.1 percent increase. This is hardly draconian.

Which is exactly the point. “Make the rich pay their fair share of taxes” is a long-running and standard Democratic message. It has broad support among Democratic voters.[6] Why didn’t Democratic politicians include real and big tax increases on the wealthy in bills they passed by reconciliation? Perhaps one politician’s off-guard remark explains why: “you need both a public and a private position.”[7] This not a uniquely Democratic stance. It explains much.

[1] Which means that we have been dealing with a deeply divided Senate—and country—for better than 50 years. It isn’t such a new phenomenon. That doesn’t mean that the issues dividing the country have remained the same or that the voter line-ups have remained the same.

[2] Reconciliation (United States Congress) – Wikipedia

[3] American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 – Wikipedia

[4] Inflation Reduction Act – Wikipedia

[5] Tax Policy Center – Wikipedia

[6] See the excellent analysis in Americans’ top frustrations with the federal tax system | Pew Research Center

[7] Clinton’s Two-faced (Private v. Public) Policy on TPP

An Informed Discussion of the Blockade.

Posted on April 17, 2026 by jsh54

You may be satisfied with the discussion of the blockade of the Straits of Hormuz as presented in the media. If so, great! Want to buy a bridge? Or you may want to know more.

The podcast “School of War” is–so I judge–a right-of-center take on current small wars and demolition. It has the very great virtue of hosting guests who know a lot more than the average person about military and diplomatic affairs. The host is Aaron MacLean. Former Marine officer deployed to Afghanistan; former instructor at the Naval Academy, former staffer for Senator Tom Cotton; book-worm (and so am I). He’s no idiot and his estimable goal is to get his guests to talk about what they know.

He’s branched-out to Youtube. The episode linked here is the second of two recent broadcasts. First one is really good as well. This one will grant you access to a “how it works and what could go right/wrong” take by a knowledgeable person

How Trump’s Blockade of Iran Actually Works with Sal Mercogliano – YouTube

Our War with Iran.

Posted on April 16, 2026 by jsh54

There were reasonable arguments both for and against war with Iran.[1] President Donald Trump chose war. Trump has not offered a clear and persuasive argument for the war. As is his wont, he has put forth multiple justifications wrapped in clouds of hyperbole. It has been the same with his evaluations of how the war is progressing.[2]

The war started well: a decapitation offensive killed much of the senior military, security, and political leadership; the air defenses were largely degraded; ballistic missiles, their launchers, and weapons stockpiles were hit very hard; and the Iranian Navy (such as it was) has been largely destroyed.

Then, to the apparent surprise of President Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hogwallop, Iran did not surrender.[3] Pre-war commentary often said that the original widespread revolutionary fervor among Iranians had long since waned. Now, the ranks of the government were supposed to be filled with careerists mimicking enthusiasm in order to get and keep jobs. Surely, someone would step up to say “enough is enough!” This evaluation may have misread the situation.[4] Rather like the “Black Knight” in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” Iran refused to concede defeat. It kept on launching such missiles and drones as it still possessed at its oil-producing neighbors. It declared the Straits of Hormuz closed. Perhaps they can’t make good on that decree, but who wants to be on an oil tanker or natural gas container ship if they can? So, the Strait is mostly closed.

A two-week cease-fire has been agreed. The terms are murky and disputed. In all likelihood, the Iranian government is lying. In the past, they have denounced as forgeries documents that they signed days before. Peace-talks were held, but failed. Now the United States has blockaded Iranian shipping. Other preparations are undoubtedly underway as the cease-fire clock ticks down. These preparations may even involve “boots on the ground.”

This is not an excuse for quitting on the war that has begun. Better to see it through. If we quit now, take some phony deal just to have an “off-ramp,” bad things will happen.

We will have run through a lot of our limited stock of munitions for absolutely no gain. We will be less ready for whatever fight comes next.

Our enemies and our friends will see our weakness. That weakness is in military power, but also in will. Does anyone really want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons? Does anyone really want China to seize Taiwan? Does anyone really want Russia to defeat Ukraine? Does anyone really want ALL of these things to happen, pretty much simultaneously?

Donald Trump started this war on his own, but he can’t be allowed to end it short of victory. This is America’s war; this is OUR war.

[1] See: The Argument for War with Iran. | waroftheworldblog ; and The Argument Against War with Iran. | waroftheworldblog

[2] Not to excuse Trump’s “style,” but after ten years of this kind of thing, you’d think people would accept that it’s how he talks. Discount the guff and focus on what is consistent. Counting up all the times that he has over-stated, offended, or lied doesn’t get us anywhere. Conservative commentators have argued that Progressives often confuse rhetoric with reality. Acting like Trump is no solution to Trump.

[3] Neither did Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan when they found themselves in an even worse situation in 1945.

[4] Possibly, such a misreading could have been based on psychological “projection.”

The Authoritarian Handbook–V.

Posted on April 15, 2026 by jsh54

The wars themselves, those of the third quarter of the century, had two faces. Yes, they reshaped the relationships between the so-called “Great Powers.” They broke the alliance between the arch-conservative powers Austria and Russia; they created two new nations in Italy and Germany; they sent the Austrian Empire spinning toward decay and collapse; and they put a stop to vexing French pretensions to dominate European affairs. This will gladden the hearts of future historians obsessed by the traditional themes of “Great Men” and dramatic events.[1]

No, they weren’t chiefly about re-making the balance of power. Effective “authoritarians” saw that their road to the power to do other things ran through first satisfying a public desire for language-based communities. That is, “Nationalism” had a powerful grip on the minds of many people.[2] Some of the benefits of the victory of Nationalism were psychic, rather than material. People felt pride in their nation. People felt themselves part of some deeply-rooted and long-denied community. Parades, flags, memorial columns, school lessons, the talk of older men who had once “done their bit,” and the language itself—salted with historical references and military analogies—all kept the victories of Nationalism alive in the minds of ordinary people.

Certainly, “authoritarians” could fail of their goals. Napoleon III gambled on war to shape Italian unification, then saw the Italians escape his leading-strings. Napoleon III gambled on war to prevent Prussian domination of a unified Germany, then saw his country defeated, replaced by a mere republic that has become a by-word for ineffective government, personal self-indulgence, and scandals. The Hungarians had wanted national independence, but had to settle for fifty years of partnership with the despised Austrians. The ungrateful and stupid heirs of Tsar Alexander II never gave a thought to improving the lives of their people. Their own psychological weakness led them to seek outward shows of authority. These men were lath painted to look like iron.

So, neither Peace nor War alone guaranteed the survival of “effective authoritarianism.”

[1] Editor’s Note. Actually, this “democratizing” critique became a commonplace theme directed against diplomatic and military historians in later, more “progressive” times. All the same, what are the “Iliad” or “King Henry V” or “War and Peace” about?

[2] Why language should prevail over other identities—religion, gender, race, or social class—at this hour in history remains a mystery to us. These other forms of identity seem just as vital as does Nationalism. They might yet provide the basis for a better organization of community.

The Authoritarian Handbook–IV.

Posted on April 10, 2026 by jsh54

We have spoken of the crimes of the “old authoritarians,” whether open or masked. What of their achievements? For these hold the key to understanding the “effective authoritarian.” It can’t be just blood, toil, tears, and snot if the “authoritarian” regime is to last. The years from 1850 to 1914 are a catalogue of “Dos” and “Don’ts” for “authoritarians” of our own day.[1]

Who are the model “authoritarians” of the period? The French Emperor Louis Napoleon III (r. 1850-1870). The Russian Tsar Alexander II (r. 1855-1881). The “German,” more accurately Prussian, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck (g. 1863-1890). These three men represent the highest plane of the modern pre-Great War “authoritarian.” Other men of the time stand on a somewhat lower plane. The Sardinian, then Italian, prime minister Camillo, Count Cavour (g. 1852-1861) is one. The American President Abraham Lincoln (g. 1861-1865) is another.[2]

There were many other “authoritarians” or “aspiring authoritarians.” As we will see, they were of the old type. Some sought to rule without check on their power, but also without any larger purpose in mind. Some sought to use modern methods to hold back necessary changes. Their successes and failures need not detain us.

What did “authoritarian” regimes achieve with their power?

Peace, first of all. Certainly not absolute or universal peace. The 19^th Century was drenched in blood. It was mostly the blood of Africans and Arabs and Asians and the Wild Indians of North America. The Civil War among the Americans offers a striking exception to this rule.[3] Comparatively little blood fell on European battle fields.

In comparison to the frequent and lengthy wars of the 18^th and early 19^th centuries, the wars fought between 1815 and 1914 were few and of short duration. In 1849, war pitted the Austrian and Russian Empires against the rebellious Hungarians; in 1855, France and Britain fought the Russians; in 1859, France and Sardinia attacked (and the French defeated) the Austrians; in 1863 Prussia and the Austrians defeated the Danes; in 1866, Prussia defeated the Austrians; and in 1870, Prussia and its German allies defeated France.

Peace all the same. War between the major European states halted. There was no general war, no prolonged war, no devastating war. Particularly in the last third of the 19^th Century and the first decade of our own century, disputes were settled in diplomatic conferences. No wrecked cities, no grieving widows and orphans, no mangled veterans cadging tips on street corners. These “no”s are the invisible monuments raised in every farm village and factory town.

[1] Often is the question posed: “Why don’t people learn from History?” This is nonsensical. People DO learn from History. They learn from their own History—that is, experience subjected to consideration. What man has hit his thumb with a hammer more than two or three times? People of experience try to convey “lessons” to others (often their bored progeny) in the form of maxims: “Never try to fill an inside straight”; “You hold a woman around the waist and a bottle around the neck, not the other way around”; “Work hard and save your money, it’s going to be a hard winter” (said in any season); “A gun is always loaded until you know it isn’t, so always check in the breech”; “Without Love and a little fun, life isn’t worth living”; and “If you stare into the abyss long enough, the abyss stares into you.” Thus, harsh experience teaches lessons to Individuals. However, there is no mechanism for determining agreed “Lessons of History” for an entire community, nor for transmitting them from one generation to the next. Everyone derives his own lessons.

[2] It is to be admitted that Lincoln’s government drew much of its character from the necessities of a great war. It is impossible to know what might have been if he had continued his presidency into a full second term or even a third. Nothing in the American Constitution bars a president from seeking more than a second term.

[3] In light of our thesis on the attributes of “authoritarian” government, it is interesting that this great struggle took place between two democracies.