I am a convert to Judaism of a conservative/traditionalist variety, but with a strong... more »
- AZ, USA
- member since March 23, 2008
I hope that I may get to reading the book soon enough. Though, like you, I am also behind in my own reading (so many interesting books, so little time). Wood is generally a good writer and a very thorough researcher. Having only read this book’s introduction I can only say that it consists of a collection of essays he’s previously published elsewhere reflecting on the ideological origins of the revolution, the making of the constitution and American democracy (as part II of the book is called), and on the early republic (part III). Wood’s focus on the importance of ideas has always sat well with me. I may not always agree with his interpretations but I appreciate his approach and intent. I’ll be sure to let you know my thoughts as soon I am able to.
Also, I’m still waiting for Border’s to deliver to me Dumas Malone’s six volume set. I placed the order with them well over a month ago but I’m also aware that they’re not doing too well (as a business) right now. They tell me not to despair and that it will soon on its way. Can’t wait.
Thank you for the recommendations. Malone's work seems to be the most comprehensive and the reviews on amazon make it the most appealing to me at this point. I have read Jefferson's personal writings and used the Library of America (LoA) volume that you mentioned. My first exposure to his writings was via a Modern Library volume of his public/private letters, speeches, Autobiography & notes on Virginia. The LoA volume is definitely more complete and worth having. My own impression of Jefferson is similar to Craig Matteson's views mentioned in his LoA review on amazon. I don't excuse his failings, but I do understand that none of us is perfect. And to me at least he was a very great man. Thanks again!
The commenter's thoughts also crossed my mind when reading that particular sentence. I don't believe that Clausewitz can be fully convicted of writing from a dynastic viewpoint, however, I also don't believe that he can be completely absolved of it either. Clausewitz is often referred to as an interpreter of Napoleon, himself having wars waged against him and revolutionary France in large part because of their revolutionary ideals. This is one reason why Napoleon's Grand Armee was able to enlist and draft so many more men than other armies, and consistently rebuild itself. So, certainly Clausewitz had these thoughts in mind while writing.
The problem that I see in modern U.S. Army thought is this need to use something as scripture. There is a tendency to create a doctrine that strategists can always fall back upon, a formulaic approach. Clausewitz does talk about the uncertainty of war, and how many things are unexpected. But, so did many American military thinkers, many whom we've discarded in favor of a theorist whose basis of military thought was used in wars largely unsuccessful since the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. Sherman for example, said "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace." This, I would argue is culturally how Americans have always executed our particular brand of warfare, as Roosevelt said, "Win[ning] through to absolute victory."[/I ].
This viewpoint largely came conflict, and finally to a head, with the removal of MacArthur by Truman. As the author suggests, the cold war was a grand strategic defense --containment was exactly that, holding the line--. I think some of the author's statistical analysis is sometimes silly, but I am inclined to agree with his, (and my own) overarching point -American War, is, and always should be, total war. His analysis of past wars attempt to outline this point, but he does quite a poor job of it, and they are far too concise and garden variety to make any impression on the reader that a paragraph in a high-school textbook wouldn't already have.
You have an excellent collection. When it comes to law, economics, philosophy & history (American history in particular) I don't believe anyone on here comes close. At least w.r.t. classical liberal ideals your selection seems very authoritative. I've already noted a few good books I plan on picking up just by browsing through your shelf. Politically/ideologically I believe we share a lot in common.
btw, I've been looking for a good Jefferson bio that's not too negative on him (e.g. of what I'm not looking for: most of the revisionists nowadays who wish to impose their contemporary biases on the past as opposed to a more honest reading). Having read his original writings I have a good sense of who he is so I'd like to read someone who isn't trying to misinform. It's very frustrating to read someone's supposedly accurate interpretation of the past only discover it's nothing but a propaganda piece for today's "learned". If you've come across such a good book, please let me know.
I'll have to look into librarything. From what I've heard it has more capabilities, though I signed on here because the neat covers caught my eye.
Thank you for pointing them out. I am not aware of Tulloch. Ekelund's work is interesting. I have an issue with the approach though (Sacred Trust). His analysis starts with the train already rolling in the Middle Ages. In order to understand the force of religion, economists must start at the very beginning and study its economic doctrines and outcomes through time. To do this, a significant rewrite is necessary because much of the extant material is fraudulent. Unfortunately, this is very difficult and prone to new errors. When I look at the conclusions in the Sacred Trust, Islam is staring at my face that there must be a paradox in claiming the Catholic Church as a driver in economic growth. It is like a husband beating up his wife and then claiming to having positively contributed to her growth by bringing her to the hospital. Hence, the value of his conclusions is limited. After exhaustively going through Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, The Great Leap-Fraud (my publication) comes to the conclusion that the economic growth was collateral damage from an increasing loss of authority. The church jump started the economy unintentionally and at a very specific time.
Thank you. I'll have to check that out. I have several study bibles. I think if I bring home another my wife will have a fit. LOL. I have a copy of Augustine's City on a Hill (or whatever it is called) but haven't taken time to read it. So many words, so little time. ~_*
Good morning, lawecon. I wanted to let you know I found a post of yours that recommended Liberty Fund's website. I have been looking for this type of information for a while and this website is perfect! I enjoy following you in your different groups and reading your posts. Thanks, again!
Thank you for the invite I hope to learn something as I never really understood or even liked the word liberal, though I've been called that a few times, guess I should find out why!:):) I did look into the Law of Comparative and it really was mumble jumble, felt like I had been bounced into the stock market of last year:) Not sure how I can contribute to the group but I'm sure something will crop up.
The Sealed Nectar is a book about biography about Prophet Mohammed ( sas ) wrtten by safi ur rahman al mubarakpuri from India and his book got the first prize in the contest in 1976, please try to read it, May Allah Guides you to his Righteous Path - Ameen
I won't be able to express it so artfully, but I had very much the same idea about you. My initial perception, from superficial clues (always tentative), was that you value reason very highly. Your observations and your approach to discussion are happy corroboration for that impression. Well met!