Animal Crossing City Folk is a fun life stimulation game. This game is for all ages and can be played with other people around the world. It has holidays and birthdays. In the beginning, you start out in a bus on your way to a town. You get to name the town and answer some questions. Once you get to the town, you must find a house. You have to do some tasks before being able to roam around and do what you choose. After you finish your tasks, you are free to start exploring your town more and find out more about your animal friends and neighbors.
You send and recieve letters. You also have your own town native fruit but by sending your town fruit to other neighbors, you can also recieve fruit from other people that aren’t growing in your town yet. Flowers die if you don’t water them and the grass changes color depending on the season. You can cut down trees to make room if you choose to. If you go to the bus stop, you can go to to the city. In the city, there are expensive stores and you can change your hair or get a makeover. Sometimes there will be other events going on too.
In your town, if you go to the gates you can look and see if anyone has passed by. You can add people by putting in their friend code and having them do the same. Once you’ve added someone, if you open your gates, they can come visit your town. However, if you add the wrong people, they can sometimes steal things or destroy your town by cutting down trees and running over the grass. You can type using a keyboard or talk to them using wiispeak.
Smashbox Waterproof Pro Second Skin Concealer in Lightstila Stay All Day Waterproof Liquid Eye Liner, Intense BlackSmashbox Waterproof Pro Second Skin Concealer in Lightstila Stay All Day Waterproof Liquid Eye Liner, Intense Black
When you’re going to the pool or the beach, it can be difficult to keep your makeup on. It doesn’t always last. The sun is out and you will probably be swimming a lot. So you don’t really need much, just enough but not too much. Before getting started it’s good to prime your face with face primer. This will keep it lasting longer. Afterwards, instead of using foundation, you can use tinted moisturizer with some SPF. This will moisturize your face, give you some coverage, and keep your face protected from the sun. Sun burns are not fun. Then, you can set it with some powder to make it less oily or dewy. If you want to wear blush, you can always wear a cream blush with it. Many people also like to wear bronzer in the summer to give them a tan glow. This part is completely optional.
Now it’s time for the eye makeup. Make sure to put eye primer on first. Then if you want, you can add cream eyeshadow. The Maybelline Tattoo eyeshadows work well and stay on for a long time. You can add a little bit of pencil eyeliner or gel liner to your lash line. Make sure it’s waterproof. Next, coat your lashes with a waterproof mascara. To finish off, just apply some lip balm to keep your lips moisturized. Now you’re good to go.
You can change this look up as much as you want. For the hair, beach waves would look nice with it.
The products for this look can be found on amazon:
Tired of wearing glasses? Try wearing contact lenses. A contact lens is a thin lens you place on the surface of the eye. Contacts can be worn to correct vision or make your eyes look a different color. There are many different kinds of contacts to choose from. There are the daily, weekly, monthly, etc. If you choose to wear daily contacts, this means by the end of the day when you finish using them, you throw them out. This will cause you to be less likely to get an eye infection. However, choosing this is much more pricey.
Another option is to wear weekly or monthly contacts which you must clean and keep in a special case. If you don’t clean your contact lenses, you can get an eye infection which can be very irritating. Your eye doctor will tell you how to clean and take care of your contacts. When you first put your contacts on, it can be very tricky. Especially if you have sensitive eyes.
There are many different ways to put contacts in. I suggest to do what is most comfortable for you. Always remember to wash your hands before touching your eyes and putting contacts in. First put your contact on the finger you are most comfortable with using. Make sure your contact isn’t inside out. If there’s any dust on your contact, make sure to clean it with solution. Now use your index finger of the opposite hand. Gently pull your upper eyelid upward and lower eyelid downward. Gently place the contact on your eye and try not to blink. For some people it helps to look up or to the side.
After a long day of wearing your contacts, it’s time to take them out. Pull your upper eyelid upward and lower eyelid downward, just as you did to put them in. Now take your index finger and thumb and pinch your contact out. If you do this correctly, it shouldn’t hurt. If you keep your contacts in a case, remember to clean it morning and night and replace your solution. If you’ve just started wearing contacts, it’s better to start out by only wearing them six hours. When you get more comfortable with your contacts, you can wear them longer.
When the government has done us wrong, any attempt to seek redress is fraught with difficulty. Ironically, people find it much easier to ask for a handout or a government job or a special favor than to ask for justice. The reason: before you can get justice, the party in the wrong has to admit to wrongdoing. Admission of misfeasance, even by a predecessor or an underling, is something that a government official is unlikely ever to do.
Theodosia Burr Alston and Jean Laffite, each acting separately and under somewhat different circumstances, found themselves in the unenviable position of writing a letter requesting help from President James Madison in righting a wrong. The wrong, in each case, was not one committed directly by James Madison, but it was a wrong he had the power to redress and chose not to.
The mental gymnastics that petitioners must perform in order not to blame the person in power is of considerable interest. In this article I will compare the strategies employed by Theodosia Burr Alston in her letter to Dolley Madison of 1809 with those of Jean Laffite in his letter to James Madison of 1815.
Of the two, Theodosia Burr Alston was the better writer, which is not surprising considering her education and the fact that she was using her native language. But her ability
to conceal bitterness and deep seated anger toward those who mistreated her father is not equal to the task. In contrast, Jean Laffite manages to cast himself as a debonair benefactor who would never think of asking for anything but a return of his property, and at that he generously allows that he should be paid only so much as the United States Treasury can spare — implying that the country will remain forever in his debt.
The text of the letter to Dolley and the text of a similar letter Theodosia wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury, can be found here:
Here I will quote relevant portions of the letter of June 24, 1809 from Theodosia Burr Alston to the first lady and will discuss their significance.
You may, perhaps, be surprised at receiving a letter from one with whom you have had so little intercourse for the last few years. But your surprise will cease when you recollect that my Father, once your Friend, is now in exile; and that the President only can restore him to me & to his country.
This is how the letter to the first lady starts, and while it may seem respectful and humble, the phrasing is already problematic. Theodosia is reminding Dolley of their long acquaintance at the same time as she admits there has not been much communication between them in the last few years. This lack of communication cannot have been because Theodosia wished it. In the last few years Aaron Burr dropped from the high office of Vice President to becoming a hunted fugitive. He was accused of treason by Thomas Jefferson himself. And when he was acquitted of the charge, despite Jefferson’s efforts to pressure the judge in the case, Burr was forced to flee the country. Not too long ago, Burr and James Madison had been close friends, Burr serving as a sort of wiser, more powerful mentor. Madison was also good friends with Jefferson. The alliance with Jefferson led to Madison’s being elected president. When forced to choose between his friendships with Jefferson and with Burr, Madison chose Jefferson. So it must be that James and Dolley, once regular dinner guests, dropped the Burrs as soon as they were in trouble.
What’s more, Theodosia reminds Dolley that Aaron Burr had once been her friend. Aaron Burr had helped bring the Madisons together. He had introduced Dolley to the future president. If not for him, Dolley would not now be Mrs. Madison.
All these things are true, but is it politic to bring them up in the opening paragraph of a letter in which you hope to get help from the president? Would it be better not to mention any of that? If Aaron Burr had been Dolley Madison’s friend, would she not remember it on her own? Isn’t an opening like that equivalent to saying: “You owe us”? And isn’t that what we must never say to anyone, leastwise someone in power?
Ever since the choice of the people was first declared in favor of Mr Madison; my heart, amid the universal joy, has beat with the hope that I too should have reason to rejoice. Convinced that Mr. Madison would neither feel nor judge from the feelings or judgment of others, I had no doubt of his hastening to relieve a man whose character he had been enabled to appreciate during a confidential intercourse of long continuance; and whom he must know incapable of the designs attributed to him. My anxiety on this subject has, however, become too painful to be alleviated by anticipations which no events have yet tended to justify; and in this state of intolerable suspense, I have determined to address myself to you, & request that you will, in my name, apply to the President for a removal of the prosecution now existing against Aaron Burr; I still expect it from him as a man of feeling and candour, as one acting for the world & posterity.
Among the universal joy that James Madison had been elected president, Theodosia added her own, based on the belief that this good friend of her father would now remove the “prosecution now existing against Aaron Burr”. She was sure that the moment James Madison came into office, her father’s troubles would be over, since they were good friends of long standing, and Madison knew that her father was not a traitor. And yet… Madison has been in office for a year now, and nothing has changed for Aaron Burr.
Again, there is no direct recrimination, but the context cries: “What kind of friend is James Madison? For that matter, what sort of President is he? He knows Aaron Burr is not guilty, knows that he was acting in the best interest of the country, and still he allows the prosecution to continue? To whom is he beholden for his office, that he cannot undo the harm that has been done?”
Statesmen, I am aware, deem it necessary that sentiments of liberality, and even justice, should yield to consideration of policy; but what policy can require the absence of my Father at present? Even had he contemplated the project for which he stands arraigned; evidently to pursue it any further would now be impossible. There is not left one pretext of alarm even to calumny; for, bereft of fortune, of popular favor, & almost of friends, what could he accomplish? And, whatever may be the apprehensions or the clamors of the ignorant & the interested, surely the timid illiberal system which would sacrifice a man to a remote & unreasonable possibility that he might infringe some law, founded on an unjust, unwarrantable suspicion that he would desire it, cannot be approved by Mr Madison, and must be unnecessary to a President so loved, so honoured. Why, then, is my Father banished from a country for which he has encountered wounds & dangers & fatigue for years?
Now, the recriminations are not implicit any longer. Every line screams: “This is so unfair!” And not far behind is the thought: “If Madison allows it, then Madison is unfair.”
And in case Dolley has forgotten, Theodosia recites the list of wrongs committed against her father and his current financial situation. She hints that he has no pension, like many other military heroes, and must start saving for his old age.
Why is he driven from his friends, from an only child, to pass an unlimited time in exile, and that too at an age when others are reaping the harvest of past toils, or ought at least to be providing seriously for the comfort of ensuing years? I do not seek to soften you by this recapitulation. I wish only to remind of all the injuries which are inflicted on one of the first characters the United States ever produced.
Theodosia is very proud. She hastens to assure Dolley that Burr will not steal into the country illegally when the country is still beholden to him for his services.
Perhaps it may be well to assure you there is no truth in a report, lately circulated, that my Father intends returning immediately. He never will return to conceal himself in a country on which he has conferred distinction.
Perhaps the most bizarre portion of the letter is this plea for secrecy. Theodosia is writing this letter behind her husband’s back, and she does not want him to find out about it. She implies that there is something almost improper in asking Dolley to speak to James Madison on Burr’s behalf. But already in so writing, she anticipates that her plea will be denied.
To whatever fate Mr Madison may doom this application, I trust it will be treated with delicacy; of this I am more desirous as Mr Alston is ignorant of the step I have taken in writing to you; which perhaps, nothing could excuse but the warmth of filial affection; if it be an error, attribute it to the indiscreet zeal of a daughter whose soul sinks at the gloomy prospect of a long and indefinite separation from a Father almost adored; and who can leave unattempted nothing which offers the slightest hope of procuring him redress. What indeed, would I not risk once more to see him, to hang upon him, to place my child on his knee, and again spend my days in the happy occupation of endeavoring to anticipate all his wishes? …
The tone of the letter turns desperate and melancholy and almost embarrassingly personal. That Theodosia’s love for her father knew no bounds is clear. But the phrase “What, indeed, would I not risk..” begs the question: what is she risking by writing this letter? Is writing to Dolley dangerous? How? Was Theodosia just being melodramatic or was more at stake than we know in keeping the correspondence with the first lady a secret?
Let me entreat, my dear Madam, that you will have the consideration and goodness to answer me as speedily as possible; my heart is sore with doubt and patient waiting for something definitive. No apologies are made for giving you this trouble, which I am sure you will not deem irksome to take for a daughter, an affectionate daughter, thus situated. Inclose your letter for me to A. J. Frederic Prevost, Esq., near New Rochelle, New York.
That every happiness may attend you, …
This letter, written from one woman to another, is at times angry, at times proud and at other times submissive and cloyingly sentimental. That Theodosia is desperate and would do anything to help her father is evident. But how effective is this letter in achieving her goals? Is her resentment toward the Madisons not just below the surface? Is it any wonder that Dolley turned her down, calling her a “precious friend” and otherwise complimenting Theodosia, but asserting that Mr. Madison could do nothing “to gratify” her wishes?
That was back in 1809. Theodosia was not asking for money or appointment to office or even a letter of marque. She was asking that her father be restored to his country, seemingly a very humble request. Why couldn’t it be granted? What forces outside President Madison’s control prevented it?
We turn now to Jean Laffite’s letter to James Madison written in December 27, 1815. Here the matter was simpler and more straightforward. Jean Laffite had informed the government of Louisiana and through them the United States Navy of the attempts of the British to recruit him to fight the Americans during the British attack on New Orleans. He offered to serve the Americans, and he gave proof of his loyalty by disclosing the whereabouts of the British fleet. Instead of accepting his overture, the American Navy and Revenue Service attacked the Laffite fleet in Barataria and confiscated his ships and the contents of his storehouse. Despite this, the Laffites remained loyal to the Americans and as soon as Edward Livingston had negotiated a deal for them with James Madison, going over the heads of the Governor and the Navy, the Laffites donated gunpowder and flint and served together with a company of their own trained artillerymen to turn the tide in the Battle of New Orleans. And yet after the war was over, the ships and goods that were confiscated from the Laffite brothers and their associates were sold at auction, never returned to their owners and no compensation was offered.
Here is the opening paragraph of Jean Laffite’s letter to James Madison, asking for restitution:
President
Encoraged by the benevolent dispositions of your Excellency, I beg to be permitted to State a few facts which are not generally Known in this part of the union, and in the mean time Sollicit the recommendation of your Excellency near the honnourable Secretary of the treasury of the U. S. whose decision could but be in my favour, if he only was well acquainted with my disinterested conduct during the last attempt of the Britanic fources on Louisiana. At the epoch that State was threatened of an invasion, I disregarded anny other consideration which did not tend to its Safety, and therefor retained my vessells at Barataria inspite of the representations of my officers who were for making Saile for Carthagena, as soon as they were informed that an expedition was preparing in New Orlean to Come agains us.
If we disregard the spelling errors and the odd diction and style, we can see that Jean Laffite has placed himself in an advantageous position by failing to make any recriminations in the opening sentences.
Unlike Theodosia Burr Alston in her letter to the first lady, who reminded Dolley of their relationship of long standing, Laffite, in his opening paragraph, casts James Madison as a fair, generous and disinterested party in this transaction who may not be fully acquainted with the facts of Laffite’s case. Also, in no way is Laffite soliciting funds from the President. It is the Secretary of the Treasury who needs persuading, and Laffite is hoping that James Madison will help win the Secretary over.
For my part I Conceived that nothing else but disconfidance in me Could induce the authorities of the State to proceed with So much Severity at a time that I had not only offered my Services, but likewise acquainting them with the projects of the ennemy and expecting instructions which were promised to me I permited my officers and Crews to secure what was their own, ashureing them that if my property Should be Ceized I had not the least happrehension of the equity of the U. S. once they would be Convinced of the Cinserity of my Conduct.
In other words, Laffite is so sure the United States government is fair and just, that he believes that only a misunderstanding of the facts of the case could have caused a delay in dealing fairly with him.
My view in preventing the departure of my vessells was in order to retain about four hunderd Skillful artillers in the Country, which Could but be of the utmost importance for its defence. When the aforesaid expedition arrived I abandoned all I pocessed in its power, and entered with all my Crews in the marshes, a few miles above New Orleans, and invited the inhabitants of City and its environs to meet at Mr. Labranches where I acquainted them with the nature of the danger which was not far of. (as may be seen by the anexed document which is atested by some of the moast notorious of the inhabitants which were present.) a few days after a proclamation of the Governor of the State permitted us to Joyne the army which was organising for the defence of the Country.
Laffite describes his behavior in putting the safety of the country first in very simple terms. He then goes on the explain that he wants no reward for defending the country, as anyone with patriotic feelings would do, but he wonders if he might have restitution for that portion of what the United States government took from him that would not deprive the United States Treasury of its own funds.
My Conduct Since that period is notorious The Country is Safe & I Claim no merit for having like all the inhabitants of the State, cooperated in its wellfair In this my Conduct has bin dictated by the impulce of my proper Centiments: But I Claim the equity of the Government of the U. S. upon which I always relied for the restitution of at least that portion of my property which will not deprive the treasury of the U. S. of anny of its own funs. For which benefit will lieve for ever grateful your Excellency’s very respectful and very humble & Obedeant Servant
Notice that in this way, Laffite puts himself not on the footing of one who seeks a favor, nor in the angry and bitter stance of one who has been robbed, but rather he paints himself as a benevolent and generous donor, who asks to have a little of what is his back, but not so much as to bankrupt the country or to put the Treasury out of business.
The problem, in Laffite’s case, was not with the content of the letter, but its execution. It was full of misspellings, awkward phrasing and malapropisms. As just one example, Laffite used the word “notorious” for its denotation, meaning “famous”, but not its negative connotation, “famous for being bad”. He is then seen as boasting about his ill fame, when he meant to say just the opposite.
Excuses could be made to the effect that Jean Laffite was not a native speaker of English, but that is not really the problem. James Madison was a gentleman, and he could read French, as very nearly all well educated men in those days could. In fact, the Madison archives contain letters addressed to the President in French requesting appointments and sponsorship. President Madison looked upon some of these requests with favor.
Letter from Dupont de Nemours to James Madison
As an example of just such a letter, consider the one dated December 28, 1815 from Dupont de Nemours to James Madison, which just happens to have been the next letter Madison received after the one he got from Jean Laffite. Dupont de Nemours writes: “Monsieur le President, J’ai a vous remercier avec la plus vive reconnaissance, a la bonte, pleine de graces, avec laquelle votre Excellence bien voulu admettre mon Petit-Fils dans le Corps de Midshipmen.” In English: “Mr. President, I have to thank you with the most vivid gratitude at the goodness with which Your Excellency has admitted my grandson into the Corps of Midshipmen.” In other words, for the grandson of Dupont de Nemours, an exiled French aristocrat, there is a place in the United States Navy. But for Jean Laffite, who saved the country from certain annihilation, there is nothing. Why?
The fact that Jean Laffite could not have written such a letter in French or English or any of the other languages he was fluent in is part of the story. Laffite was literate, in the sense that he could read and write. He was multilingual, in the sense that he spoke many languages fluently, among them Spanish, French and English. But he was no gentleman, in the sense that he did not have a university education or the equivalent of private schooling. No matter what language he wrote in, he was bound to make comical mistakes, such as spelling “sentiment” with a “c”. This word is spelled the same way in both French as in English, and it was not because Laffite was a Frenchman that he did not know how to spell it. It was because he belonged to the merchant class, and no matter how intelligent and brilliant and articulate he was, he could not compete with the likes of James Madison and Albert Gallatin and Dupont de Nemours.
Theodosia Burr Alston was a well educated woman who wrote brilliant, moving letters, but she could not move Dolley Madison, who was far less educated, especially when Theodosia reminded Dolley too often of the past in her letter. But Jean Laffite, despite his brilliant bargaining strategy was bound to fail like Theodosia in his plea to Madison, and his failure was for social reasons as well: Laffite’s way of expressing himself betrayed his class and confirmed in Madison’s mind that the man was nothing but “a pirate”.
Theodosia Burr Alston to Dolley Madison, 24 June 1809,” Founders Online, National Archives (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/03-01-02-0285, ver. 2013-06-26)
“To James Madison from Jean Laffite, 27 December 1815,” Founders Online, National Archives (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-01-02-4832, ver. 2013-06-26). Source: this is an Early Access document from The Papers of James Madison
Most people agree that if you want to communicate with someone else, you have to meet him halfway. It’s all about give and take, and we have to be willing to do both. But what many people have never stopped to consider is that the halfway point changes, depending on who you are talking to. Also, over time, the halfway point may shift.
The Dallas Metropolitan area — Source: Wikipedia
I used to have a friend who lived near Ft. Worth. We were both living in the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex. I was living in Grand Prairie, which was more on the Dallas side, and she was living in a suburb of Ft. Worth. Driving time between us was close to an hour. My friend was very meticulous about the concept of give and take. She kept records of which of us had driven to the other’s house last. And she made sure that the next time around, the other person was the one to make the drive. We used to meet about once a week, and this was a good system, so long as I lived in the Metroplex. It was almost like meeting at the halfway point between us, in that each of us traveled the same distance to meet the other. It was fair. It was equal.
And then one day I moved to Houston. Now it took me five hours to drive to Grand Prairie, where there was still a house I could stay in. I could make the five hour drive to Grand Prairie for a weekend visit, and I hoped she could come from her house to meet me there. My friend, however, insisted that every second visit, I had to drive all the way to Ft. Worth from Grand Prairie to see her, even though I had just driven five hours to get to Grand Prairie. She did not understand that the halfway point had shifted. In time, I found this so exhausting that even if a visit to the Metroplex could be managed, I did not bother to call up my friend.
Now the same issue applies between any two people when they are trying to communicate. It can be exhausting to always have to put yourself in the other person’s shoes, when they never try to understand your point of view. Yes, everybody is capable of perspective shifting, but the amount of shift depends on how different the other person is from you. If you have a friend that is very different, then each should shoulder at least half the difference, or the friendship will be unsustainable.
In communicating with another person, you have to choose the medium of communication. For instance, you might decide on a language that both of you speak. One of you may be a native speaker of that language and the other may be a non-native. If someone is speaking to you in your language, while using a language that is not his own, you must understand that he has already come more than halfway to meet you, and any gaps in communication due to imperfect use of your language are yours to bridge.
By the same token, if someone who is not good at non-verbal communication is bending over backwards to try to understand someone whose primary mode of communication is non-verbal, the non-verbal communicator needs to make more of an effort to bridge the remaining gap, because the verbal communicator has already made a big effort.
Some people rely very heavily on their cultural background to interpret everything that is said to them. They don’t realize that someone else from a different background may interpret things differently. Take hair color, for instance. Hair color is not an absolute, because the concept of color is culturally mediated.
Where I come from, my hair would be considered dark brown, but not black. Black hair, according to Israeli understanding, should have blue highlights. If the highlights are reddish, then the hair, even though quite dark, is considered dark brown, not black. But according to American standards, my hair is black. I make allowances for these differences by taking into account the background of the person I am speaking to. If an American describes someone as having black hair, I know it means a different range of darkness than if someone from Israel described the same person.
Many people, however, are not aware of these slight cultural variations in the color concept. To them color is an absolute. This became really evident to me when I went to teach in Taiwan, and there were other westerners in the English department where I taught.
One day, I was scheduled to give a talk about “Cycles in Language”. The students in my department prepared a poster to announce the talk. As part of the poster, they drew a representation of me holding a microphone and giving the talk.
I liked the picture, and I thought it was a fairly accurate caricature, except that possibly they had slimmed me down a little. But one of my colleagues turned to me and said: “Did you see what they did with your hair? They are sure all westerners have red hair, so they gave you red hair, when actually it’s pitch black.”
I looked at him. He was a blond American. I considered setting him straight about how actually my hair is not black by Israeli standards. And the picture was not of a redhead, but a brunette. But then I thought better of it. I just nodded. “Yeah.”
How we perceive color depends on where we come from. But how we perceive other people’s perception of color depends on how practiced we are at perspective shifting. People who don’t understand that color is culturally relative cannot see what you see. They can only ever see what they see.
The first step toward placing yourself in another person’s shoes is understanding that not all other people are the same as the other people you have met before. Some are closer to you, because they come from a similar place, and so the halfway point is also closer. Some are standing much further away, and so to meet them halfway, you have to go further yourself.
Most people are happy to meet others halfway. The problem is recognizing where halfway is. Sometimes that requires a little trial and error, as we get to know each other.
There is, however, one type of person who will never meet you halfway: the person who thinks there is “normal” and “not-normal”, and that if your perspective is different from his, it is just wrong, and that’s all there is to it. That sort of person is doomed to be a permanent stranger, because he thinks that meeting another person half way is only half the distance between one normal person to another. In other words, half of zero.
But for everybody else out there, there is always hope, as we gradually adjust our perspective, looking for the magical halfway point that will allow us to get together and share thoughts.
Vacuum County is all about perspective shifting. Order here
F. L. Light is a poet, translator and dramatist. He is a prolific writer, and Amazon lists 65 of his works. He also writes online, and two of his blogs can be found here:
I recently had the opportunity to interview F. L. Light, and the questions and answers are reproduced below.
1. I first came across your works when you submitted to the Inverted-A Horn back in the 1980s. I was impressed by your control of the metrical form, but a little taken aback by your use of unusual vocabulary, much of it from latinate origin, or older English forms. These were the sort of words that one could easily find in the OED, but not in the ordinary parlance of even the most educated speakers. Another aspect of your writing was your veneration of the older, pagan gods, mostly of the Greco-Roman pantheon. All this led me to wonder: what is your educational background? Are you conversant in Latin and Greek? When did your learn meter and from whom? How did you come by the knowledge to write as you do? Are you trained in the classics?
When I was in the 2nd grade, my class was escorted to the nearest public library. I can remember the first two books I borrowed. One was a children’s version of the Iliad with many illustrations, and the other was a biography of Shakespeare, which described him reciting to the actors his latest play, Macbeth. In the sixth or seventh grade, my friend, Bailin, and I would interrogate each other about Greek and Roman history and culture.
My teacher of Greek in college was an expert in Homeric formulae. I had four semesters of Homeric Greek and one of Herodotus. I learned to translate the Iliad and how to scan dactylic hexameter, the epic meter of Homer. The college library had most of the Loeb Classical Library, volumes of which I often borrowed, especially Plutarch, Plato, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides and Aristophanes.. James Loeb, who founded that series, was a partner in Kuhn, Loeb, the Wall Street firm, which supported E H Harriman when he reconfigured Union Pacific.
2. Some of your works are original poems and some are translations. Could you expound on the different poetic processes that go into making a translation as opposed to writing an original work? For instance, I enjoyed listening to your Antigone as read by Jesse M. Bernstein. How much of that work is your own and how much is Sophocles? Do you translate word for word or line for line or sentence by sentence? Or is it more like scene for scene?
Translators are supposed to be faithful to their authors, not to distort them, especially the classics. Translation is usually line by line, though sometimes by sentence. Other translators are not fit for the poetic cogency of Sophocles which is lost in translation. Abiding by the lines of Sophocles, I would do no less poetically than he while remaining faithful to his Attic Greek.
In my historical dramas I often rewrite 19th century documents into my dramatic idiom. It is akin to translation but the text is much enhanced. This is what Shakespeare does with his sources. Sometimes I consult Congressional hearings, which in the 19th century were much more well-spoken than they are now.
3. Your works manifest a true veneration of the ancient gods. Are you yourself a pagan or is it just that you are able to enter into the spirit of your subject matter so completely that it seems that way?
But for religion I would not have translated the Iliad. Homer understood the communicative furtherance afforded to humans by the intelligence of signs. I never cared for the Wicca people, a movement fit for illiterates or free versers. Now if I were to identify myself with any proposed philosophy, it would be with the Objectivists, although Rand’s esthetics are not mine.
4. I recently came across your sonnets of The Julianic Manifest. In them you praise the Emperor Julian who reestablished paganism as the state religion, overturning Constantine’s establishment of Christianity. How do you feel about establishment of religion in general? Do you think the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights is correct in forbidding it?
The Julianic Manifest is volume five of Cleopatra’s Kingdom of Idolatry, wherein classical effigies and painting represent the ideals of ancient Greece. Both pagans and Catholics worshiped their ideals in art.
I can condone the classical establishment of paganism for the esthetics. But establishment implies a central government of impositions and political impostures. Caesar advised Augustus to use religion for validation, although religion is invalid in itself. That was the beginning of the dark ages.
5. I know that you have read Sophocles and Shakespeare and Ayn Rand. What others have you read? What authors have most influenced your thinking and your writing style?
Homer, the first recorded poet of Hellas, I might set above Shakespeare. In college I read the complete works of Lord Byron, John Milton, Chaucer, Dostoeyevsky, H L Mencken, and Friedrich Nietzsche. I had German for two years to study Nietzsche’s texts. His esthetics are much better than Rand’s. My books of couplets are somewhat Nietzschean in style.
From Chaucer to Tennyson, the English have produced the best literature in Europe.
I have also translated three plays by Aeschylus, and the Argonautica by Apollonius of Rhodes. Prometheus Bound, performed by Jack Nolan, is now offered on Audible.com.
6. You have published many books which are available on Amazon and now on Audible. What form of publication do you like best: print, ebook or audio file? Explain why.
As I have more time to listen than to read, I prefer recorded books. The spoken word is of more instance and impetus than the written word. In the ancient world authors like Herodotus and Homer were recited to audiences. Some households would have servants whose only duty was to recite books.
I use ebooks for research.
7. What do you see as the major problems facing people in the United States today? Can writers and poets make a difference in addressing these problems? If so, how?
The major badness in the US is the Robber Media, which robs Americans of their true history, their proper language, their acuity in discernment, their normal ethics of earning, their manhood or womanhood, and their individual properties, material and private. Once a person is stupefied, he is easily robbed, defrauded, and enslaved.
Reason’s dissolvers are your dizziers,
As apprehension is reduced to blurs.
Most folk assimilate delusions, not
Defying an excited idiot.
Every generation decries the changing social norms of the generation that comes after: unless, of course, the older generation does not even survive to see how the younger generation lives. In that case, the younger generation is pretty much left to its own devices.
In the eighteenth century, parents sometimes did not live to watch their children grow up. That was the case with Aaron Burr, Sr. and his wife Esther Edwards Burr. They died when their daughter Sally was three years old and their son Aaron was only two. Sally may have followed in her mother’s footsteps, marrying at seventeen a man who was a great deal older and had served her as a tutor. But Aaron Burr was in almost every particular different in his choices from his father. Where his father was pious, Aaron Burr, Jr. was agnostic. Where his father was loyal to Britain, Aaron Burr joined the Continental Army to fight against the British. Where his father married a seventeen year old girl when he was thirty-six, Aaron Burr, Jr. married a thirty-five year old widow when he was twenty-five.
In some ways the generation of his parents and the generation of Aaron Burr, Jr. lived on opposite divides of a major cultural shift. Founded by Puritans, the American colonies had been filled with pious, self-restrained, hard working loyalists. Suddenly in one generation — the generation that separated the two Aaron Burrs — the most prominent members of society became deists, like Thomas Jefferson, believers in the separation of church and state, like James Madison, and agnostics, like Aaron Burr the younger. They flouted the traditional authority of the state. They looked for new ways to educate their children and they showed a different attitude toward romance. How in one generation had this changed? Where did the ideas come from that allowed such a cataclysmic rift in the very fabric of society?
François-Marie Arouet , known by the nom de plum, Votaire From the Wikimedia
It was the Enlightenment, many will tell us, the age of reason that set aside tradition in favor of rational thought and scientific experiment. While Esther Edwards Burr was nourished on the Bible and the sermons of her father, Jonathan Edwards, Aaron Burr and his bride, Theodosia Bartow Prevost read and discussed Voltaire and Rousseau.
Aaron Burr, Sr. asked for Esther Edwards Burr’s hand in marriage after first obtaining the consent of her father. When he asked, her response was one she had been trained from childhood to make: “If it please the Lord.”
Aaron Burr, Jr. corresponded with Theodosia Bartow Prevost, a married woman with five children. When the topic of love arose, she cited the superiority of Rousseau over Lord Chesterfield as a reason to practice self-restraint.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau From the Wikipedia
Today, if a thirty-six year old president of a university asks a seventeen year old girl to marry him, and if her father’s consent were the thing that induced her to accept, it might be greatly frowned upon. Today, if a twenty-five year old young man who had just taken the bar were to marry a widow ten years his senior, perhaps nobody would remark on it at all.
But in the days of Aaron Burr, Sr., his courtship of Esther Burr was perfectly respectable, perhaps even exemplary in the restraint that both parties showed by not indulging in familiarity prior to marriage. And in the days of Aaron Burr, Jr., it was the knowledge that they loved one another, though without acting on it, prior to the death of her husband, that made people talk.
So it happens that what once was a respectable mode of courtship has fallen into disrepute, whereas what may have seemed questionable is now accepted as normal.
Today, when the right and the left are at each other’s throats, where devotees of the Constitution forget that it was written by followers of the Enlightenment, whereas those who claim they follow the liberal tradition have become authoritarian and dismiss the rights of the individual, it might behoove us to think of the generation gap between the two Aaron Burrs.
Freedom from tyranny goes hand in hand with personal freedom. But each generation has to remake the world to fit its own way of thinking. Which way are we leaning today?
Wedgewood Harlequin Butterfly Bloom saucer and cup
In the spring and summer months, all of nature turns to beautiful and whimsical colors. The blossoms of every tree and bush invite us to enjoy life and the great outdoors. Even when dining inside, we like to leave the windows open and allow the gentle breeze to caress us as we eat. When this is the general mood, who wants to eat off boring, monochromatic dinnerware? This is the time for Wedgewood Harlequin Butterfly bloom table settings.
There is nothing like a fresh splash of elegant color to fill the dining room with cheer.
Cups and saucers dressed up in blooms and butterflies are enough to bring life to the most gloomy of family gatherings. On top of which, your stodgy Aunt Martha cannot complain, as you can always whisper meaningfully: “But it’s Wedgewood!”
This is a review of Roger G. Kennedy’s biographical book, Burr, Hamilton and Jefferson: A Study in Character.
Kennedy’s is not the sort of book one should read when not familiar with the history of the United States, the Revolutionary War, early American politics, or the specific life stories of Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Because Burr, Hamilton and Jefferson is not written in chronological order as a straight narrative, but instead groups events by topic for the purposes of character analysis, the book might be confusing to the uninitiated. But if you are so thoroughly familiar with the basic facts underlying the analysis that you are able to understand at all times the wider frame of reference, Roger G. Kennedy’s Burr, Hamilton and Jefferson: A Study in Character is an excellent tool for deepening your knowledge. You can open the book on any page and learn something new and interesting about people and events you thought you knew everything about.
For me, the different experiences of the three men in the Revolutionary War were brought into sharper focus when compared and contrasted in this way. The comparison between what Burr did during the war and how Jefferson occupied his time was especially telling and left a strong impression on my mind.
Military service, of course, is a tricky subject. All three men were active and prominent. All three could claim to have been of service to their country in the Revolutionary War. But the way in which they served reveals their character. Jefferson sat on the sidelines and avoided action. Hamilton was involved in military campaigns and worked toward personal advancement. But Burr was the one who fought on the front lines, or was sent to deal with difficult issues of discipline but who declined a desk job under George Washington. Because his relations with Washington were not sufficiently deferential, Washington snubbed Burr and failed to commend him for his service. When military pensions were handed out, Burr did not get one. (This did not change until toward the very end of his life, Burr’s service was recognized by President Andrew Jackson.)
Kennedy’s study covers many other facets of the personalities of the three men. In matters of religion, Hamilton claimed great piety, Jefferson shielded the people from knowledge of his theism by using fancy words such as “endowed by their Creator”, while Burr refused to put on a show of religiosity. In matters of the heart, Hamilton had many affairs and was irresponsible, while Burr tried to help women who had gotten into trouble by finding themselves on the wrong side of social mores. Jefferson spoke out publicly against slavery, but did not free the slaves he owned, even those with whom he was intimate. On the question of honorable treatment of adversaries, Hamilton threw calumny around without conscience, Jefferson declared Burr guilty before he was tried and bypassed constitutional provisions to see him convicted, but Burr did not in fact speak out against his adversaries. He practiced a very honorable silence, which in the end did his reputation much harm.
In discussing Burr’s letters to his daughter Theodosia from Europe, Kennedy touches upon the unusual candor that Burr practiced as a father. It could not have been easy for Theodosia to read some of her father’s avowals, but he can never be said to have misrepresented himself as a paragon of virtue to his child. That he nevertheless won her undying respect and admiration is something worthy of contemplation.
The issue of slavery and the attitudes of the three men toward it was also a big part of this book. Also touched upon lightly were the fiscal policies of all three. Each of the three men was a bad manager of his own personal assets. Each might well be termed a spendthrift. But Burr got there because of his generosity towards others and his willingness to spend his own money for public ends such as the conquest of Mexico, whereas Hamilton wanted to spend and tax, and Jefferson favored purchasing land at the expense of the people.
To me, the most telling contrast when reading Kennedy’s book was Burr’s willingness to put his life, his fortune and his sacred honor in the service of his country where Jefferson was only penning such words. Undoubtedly Jefferson was an eloquent writer, but Burr was a doer of deeds.
War is inevitable. In a world where there are separate countries with separate interests, and in which there is international commerce and immigration and an exchange of both goods and ideas, of people and of merchandise — and even sometimes people as merchandise — little disagreements are bound to arise. And little disagreements can turn into border skirmishes, pitched battles and even complete chaos involving mass carnage and unspeakable horror.
There are only two ways to arrive at a relative peace: submit or fight to win. Submitting is shameful and expensive. Fighting is dangerous and expensive.
Once we realize that war must be paid for, one way or another, then only one question remains: who should pay for war?
In this day and age, almost everyone agrees that war should be paid for by the taxpayer. In other words, ordinary citizens have to pay Danegeld to their own government in order to get it to protect them from intruders. But then who will protect them from the government?
Once you agree to pay Danegeld to anyone — even your own government — is there any way to put a cap on it? Doesn’t paying Danegeld only encourage more warfare and more taxation to pay for it?
Isn’t there another way that will both minimize the cost of war and also lead to having fewer wars?
1. The Abstract Principles that Govern War and Peace
The basic strategy that governs both war and peace is called Tit for Tat. It means that aggressive and destructive behavior is met with retaliation, but peaceful behavior is met with peace. The most effective version of tit for tat exacts a price for initiating violence above and beyond a return to the status quo. This ensures that another attack is less likely. So, for instance, in border skirmshes, the winner of a skirmish against an aggressor gets to keep any territory gained, discouraging the other side from starting another skirmish.
Tit for tat is a strategy found in nature, and it is employed by many different species, including chimpanzees and humans, to ensure relatively cooperative behavior from conspecifics most of the time.
Some aspects of war are purely destructive: people are killed or buildings are demolished. But in every war there are also spoils, such as property that is claimed from the enemy, territory gained and prisoners taken, who can later be used as slave labor.
Winning a war does not simply mean a cessation of hostilities. Winning means making good any losses incurred during the war at the expense of the enemy and realizing a gain in terms of spoils. Only then can the war be seen as having come out to one party’s advantage. Getting a true and telling advantage over the enemy is not a purely spiteful or venial consideration. It is a way to ensure a prolonged cessation of hostilities.
When wars end without a clear victor, then a resumption of hostilities can be expected fairly soon, as the enemy recovers from any wounds inflicted. But when one party is clearly victorious and another is crushed and surrenders unconditionally, then and only then can a relatively conflict-free interlude of long duration take place. These interludes are called peace.
So the question is, for those who see war as an undesirable state of affairs, how can we get to the peace after the war as quickly as possible and with the least expenditure of life and other valuable commodities?
Many suggest that a strong defense requires a standing army and government expenditure on the implements of war, even in times of peace. But if we reckon with the price of obtaining these goods from unwilling citizens, as well as the disruption of the economy by the creation of entire industries dependent on government subsidies, then in fact the price is very high and the overall value of such an army is reduced in terms of cost/benefit analysis.
2. Taxation Requires an Internal Army to Obtain Funding for Your External Wars
In the United States of today, the armed forces are kept afloat by funding obtained for them by the Internal Revenue Service from the citizenry, instead of relying on the spoils of war derived from other nations. The Internal Revenue Service, in order to make sure that taxes are collected, has its own military arm to deal with those people who will not willingly pay the Danegeld. Even when taxpayers are cooperative, as most are, there is an entire bureaucracy devoted to calculating and collecting the tax, and even many people ostensibly in the private sector have made for themselves careers based entirely on helping people to report their income and calculate the tax. All of this is a drain on the economy.
In addition, defense contractors are known to be highly inefficient in the way that they produce weapons, and they compare poorly to weapons manufacturers who sell weapons to the general public. Vessels built to government specifications under a government bidding system are much more expensive than vessels built on spec in the private sector. Even toilets and nails and other commodities, when ordered by and for the government, become disproportionately expensive.
When the government contracts for war, it tends to forget that the purposes of war is to inflict damage on the enemy with the smallest possible outlay of resources. It forgets that guerrilla warfare is more effective than pitched battles and that commandeering an enemy vessel is more cost efficient than building one of your own.
3. The Early History of War Finance in the United States.
The reason for the American Revolution was the unwillingness of the American Colonists to finance the war expenses of the British Empire in other parts of the globe. The revolution was about taxes, but it was also about quartering of soldiers, about unreasonable search and seizure and most of all about British soldiers treating British colonists as if they were the enemy to be plundered.
The Revolutionary War really was a revolution, rather than simply a war of independence. The revolution was about the relationship of citizens to their government. The colonists refused to be treated as all British subjects were: as mere sources of income for the British government.
Arguably, the revolutionary war was not actually won, so much as fought to a stalemate. The colonists succeeded in making themselves enough of a nuisance so as to drive the British army away. They became independent and self-governing. They did not, however, continue with their war effort and pursue the British to their own home base, to harry them and demand tribute so as to fill the American coffers and to pay the war debt incurred during the revolution. Hence the new nation started out in debt. Their war efforts were not a financial success. They were not Danes. They were not Vikings. War was not their their daily bread. Commerce was.
The Whiskey Rebellion: George Washington rides out against the people. From Wikimedia Commons
The American Revolution was about getting rid of that pesky internal British army that collects taxes so the valiant external British army can go to war against other nations. But seeing as the Americans had not paid for the war against the British, they soon felt compelled to start taxing their own citizenry for the protection afforded them by their new government from the British. The Whiskey Rebellion was about that. The disagreements between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were about that: it was not about democracy versus monarchy or even about a strong central government over a weak one. It was about this very question: Who should pay for waging war?
4. Alexander Hamilton’s Revenue Service
Alexander Hamilton was unusual among the founding fathers, because he did not see the national debt as a mere problem to be solved: he saw it as an opportunity.
Hamilton saw that those people who go into debt by lending money are more likely to have a credit history that induces others to let them borrow even more. In the same way that a frugal person who has never borrowed money cannot get a loan because of no credit, a country that does not act as a central creditor for its local borrowers cannot expect to borrow money from foreigners. So Hamilton proposed to consolidate the war debts of each of the states, and to seek foreign investors so that the United States could incur even more debt. And he proposed to service the current debt by imposing an import tax on coffee and tea, liquor and spirits and other “pernicious luxuries.”
But to the sum which has been stated for payment of the interest, must be added a provision for the current service. This the Secretary estimates at six hundred thousand dollars; making, with the amount of the interest, two millions, eight hundred and thirty-nine thousand, one hundred and sixty-three dollars, and nine cents.
This sum may, in the opinion of the Secretary, be obtained from the present duties on imports and tonnage, with the additions, which, without any possible disadvantage either to trade, or agriculture, may be made on wines, spirits, including those distilled within the United States, teas and coffee.
The Secretary conceives, that it will be sound policy, to carry the duties upon articles of this kind, as high as will be consistent with the practicability of a safe collection. This will lessen the necessity, both of having recourse to direct taxation, and of accumulating duties where they would be more inconvenient to trade, and upon objects, which are more to be regarded as necessaries of life.
That the articles which have been enumerated, will, better than most others, bear high duties, can hardly be a question. They are all of them, in reality—luxuries—the greatest part of them foreign luxuries; some of them, in the excess in which they are used, pernicious luxuries. And there is, perhaps, none of them, which is not consumed in so great abundance, as may, justly, denominate it, a source of national extravagance and impoverishment. The consumption of ardent spirits particularly, no doubt very much on account of their cheapness, is carried to an extreme, which is truly to be regretted, as well in regard to the health and the morals, as to the œconomy of the community.
And so the new nation that arose because the British colonists in America refused to pay a tax on tea created a revenue service that imposed a tax on tea (and on coffee, and on liquor and spirits, even when distilled in the United States.) Of course, to get some people to agree to pay a tax on what other people think are “pernicious luxuries” one needs an armed military unit to enforce the tax. Every tax is ultimately enforced at gunpoint and is no less an act of piracy than the encroachments by outsiders that it is supposed to help prevent.
Like the Boy Scouts, the Revenue Cutter Service Motto is “Always Prepared”
Among his many other remarkable achievements, Alexander Hamilton is responsible for the creation of the Revenue Cutter Service. Its main mission was to make sure that the tax on pernicious luxuries was always paid. The reason for the tax was to service the debt. And the reason for the debt was the colonial uprising in protest of just such a tax .
5. Isolationism Under Jefferson and the Embargo Act
That was all under the Federalists, who in order to maintain support for their policies also found it necessary to pass legislation to curtail free speech, known as The Alien and Sedition Act, while they pursued an undeclared war against France. But the direction of the country was about to change. In 1800 Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were elected president of the United States. Or, rather, they tied for president.
Burr and Jefferson were on the same side. They were both members of the anti-Federalist camp, and they were running mates on the Democratic-Republican ticket. In those days, the President was the person who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The person who received the second greatest number got to be Vice President. In case of a tie, all hell broke loose.
When all the dust had settled, Thomas Jefferson became the third president of the United States. And Jefferson had completely different ideas from the Federalists about who should pay for war. He was of the opinion that nobody should pay for war, because there should not be any wars. This was an idealistic position, but a little hard to implement.
If Aaron Burr had been chosen the president, instead of Jefferson, he would probably have implemented a policy in consonance with the general principles of tit for tat. Burr was a realist and would have balanced the need for military ascendancy with an understanding of the heavy price of war. He would have avoided war without capitulating. Burr was a war hero who led successful campaigns during the Revolutionary War. He was not afraid of war, but he also understood its cost, and having seen battle close at hand, he knew clearly who paid the ultimate price. Burr was also an able diplomat, and he would likely have used a combination of threat and coalition formation to keep the United States in a strong position vis a vis other nations without actually going to war. If he found war to be necessary, he would have been an able commander-in-chief.
But Thomas Jefferson was not a military man, and his ideas about war and peace were entirely different. During the Revolutionary War, Jefferson’s main contribution was the wording of The Declaration of Independence. He spent the rest of the war waiting for the British to leave. He never saw action. (Kennedy 1999).
Jefferson was not good at war. He did not like it. He wanted to minimize its importance in the grand scheme of things. He was a genius at many things, and his solutions to the war problem were unusually creative, though ultimately doomed to failure.
Jefferson proposed to achieve the positive objectives of war — gaining new territory — without actually engaging in war. His deal with Napoleon for the purchase of Louisiana Territory in 1803 was arguably a stroke of diplomatic and entrepreneurial genius. Though not clearly constitutional, this step did seem at first glance to avoid war by using money — instead of troops — to advance the national objectives of territorial expansion.
While Louisiana was officially bought from France, the financing involved the sale of bonds — a financial obligation — which Napoleon sold at a discount to a British bank. And so it happened that while this was an unsecured loan on the sale of real estate, the creditor financing the transaction had a fleet that could easily treat Louisiana as collateral.
At the same time, Jefferson tried to achieve the negative objectives of war — deterrence against enemy attacks — by refusing to allow Americans to engage in commerce in places where he was not prepared to defend that commerce. Under Jefferson’s sponsorship, Congress passed The Embargo Act.
In short, Jefferson thought that money could buy land, without reckoning with the price of defending that land later down the line. He thought that bullies on the high seas, such as the British fleet, could be kept in check by punishing their victims — the merchants the British were preying on. This is equivalent to preventing rape by requiring all women to stay at home.
Naturally, the American merchants continued to want to sell their wares. Smugglers arose to help with that. Part of the role the smugglers played was that of a defense fleet — and they did this at a fraction of the cost of an official navy. One of the costs of doing business is defending against theft — whether by local brigands or by international governments. The cost is kept down when the person paying it is also the one likely to gain from the commerce. The reason? The zero sum game. If it costs more than you gain, war is just not worth it.
One of the smugglers who was attracted to Louisiana during this period was Jean Laffite. Laffite was a great admirer of Thomas Jefferson, finding that the Jeffersonian ideals prepared the way for his own success. He was an avid reader of The Aurora, a paper associated with the Democratic-Republican ideals of Thomas Jefferson, and sent in letters to the editor to plead his own cause. (Keyes 2008). He was adamant in making the distinctions between pirates and privateers.
It is true that it was Thomas Jefferson’s policy that led to the rise of smugglers and privateers in Louisiana. But was this really what Jefferson had in mind when he thought up the Embargo Act? Did he really want to privatize war? If so, why did he persecute Burr when he set out on a private expedition against Spain and speak out against private individuals engaged in war in his 1803 State of the Union Address?
6. The War of 1812 and Its Financing
Eventually Jefferson stepped down, able to maintain his status as a peacetime president till the very end. His chosen successor was James Madison. Madison was also not a military man, but he inherited a real mess from Jefferson. Strapped for cash because of the Louisiana Purchase, and heavily in debt, the United States Treasury could not pay for a proper navy. At the same time, the encroachments by the British against American ships and American sailors became too difficult to bear. Madison asked for and obtained a declaration of war against Britain. But though he had Congress’s blessing in going to war, he had very little support in actually raising the funds that it would take to successfully fight a conventional war.
Americans have always resisted attempts to tax them in order to pay for war. According to Bank, Stark and Thorndike (2008.xv) “Indeed, resistance and reluctance are recurring themes in the history of American taxation. In the War of 1812, for example, congressional Republicans repeatedly balked at imposing new taxes to fund ‘Mr. Madison’s War’…”
The United States was nearly defeated and annihilated, crushed out of existence in the War of 1812. That this did not happen was in great measure due to the private war contributions of Jean and Pierre Laffite and the Baratarian buccaneers.
What is most interesting to note is that the government entities that were financed with taxpayer money to keep the enemy at bay spent almost as much effort on trying to make war on the Baratarian privateers as they did on the British. My novel, Theodosia and the Piratesdramatizes this point.
One problem with allowing the government to use taxation to achieve military objectives is this: the government often loses sight of its legitimate military objectives when it pursues its other target: people evading taxation. Even when it turned out that Jean Laffite freely gave of his own resources to fight the British on behalf of the United States, his ships were plundered to fill the coffers of government officials. It was not merely that he lost the benefit of the ships for business purposes. Those ships were not used for military purposes at all once confiscated. They were sold for money. Not only that, but the Baratarian efforts to continue to fight against the enemy to secure a true victory were hampered by a premature treaty of peace. Thus the War of 1812 was a war that ended in the red. The budget was not balanced by means of this war, and the people who died defending the territory that was gained in the Louisiana Purchase died in vain. First they paid for the territory with money that went straight to the British. Then they paid with their own blood.
War is a zero sum game. The more you pay, the less you win. Privateers understand this. Governments do not. It is for this reason that using private resources to achieve military objectives has always saved both money and blood.
7. The Efficiency of Privateers: Getting More for Less
When a government commissions the building of a ship, it will usually stint no effort to use the very best materials and have everything up to spec, so the vessel is sea worthy and the workmanship is without reproach. They do this, because they have potentially unlimited resources at their disposal and making a good job of it seems like “the responsible thing to do.”
But a privateer starting out on his first mission will actually choose to take out a less than seaworthy ship, spending the least amount of money on equipping it, in the hopes of capturing a far better vessel from the enemy, using his skill and daring to outwit and outmaneuver a more expensively built craft. Take for example the story of Jean Laffite’s older brother, Alexandre, on his first outing as a privateer (The Journal of Jean Laffite). Being young, poor, inexperienced and not entirely supported in his mission by the family, Alexandre refurbished a ship that was in very poor condition. He spent hardly any money on that ship, making it just barely seaworthy. In his first battle with the enemy, his ship sank, but he captured two fine vessels to replace it and made a great profit. If Alexandre had spent more money on his ship, his profit from the venture would actually have been less!
People spending their own money on warships make wise decisions, in terms of balancing the books. They understand that a good captain can win a battle even with a less than perfect ship. But when a government official spends money extracted from the taxpayer, the books are seldom balanced, so that in the end, no matter how much money is spent on a war, it will never turn a profit. And because there is always more money to finance the next venture, the pattern persists and one unprofitable war is followed by another and another, with no end in sight. In this way, governments spend taxpayer money and are motivated to enter into war as a way to keep the money coming.
We are told that we have to build better ships, better planes and better anti-aircraft and anti-satellite defenses than the enemy, because otherwise the enemy will outgun us. But the wiser course, considering that war is a zero sum game, is to spend far less than our enemies and to capture their ships, their missiles and their spy satellites and use them for our own purposes.
If terrorists armed only with box cutters can turn a civilian airplane into a weapon of mass destruction, imagine what a few intrepid men could do with the enemy’s ships, guns and warheads. Any fool can spend massive amounts of money on the national defense and assume that this kind of spending will automatically buy security. But a real warrior can do more with less.
8. The Zero-Sum Game
Commerce is not a zero sum game. When there is a transaction between two parties, there is no loser or winner. If the the transaction was freely entered into then both parties gain. Advocates of the free market often point this out to those who see commerce as a mere allocation of resources. In the economy, new value is created, and the potential for mutual gain is limited only by the natural resources at our disposal. The question of which natural resources are at our disposal is the province of war. Hence everything that commerce is not, war is.
War is by definition the ultimate zero sum game. It is about the allocation of the limited resources of our planet. When one party is victorious, its enemies lose. It therefore follows that the fewer resources squandered in the pursuit of a particular military objective, the more successful the campaign. In prolonged wars, everybody loses, because resources are destroyed forever that might have served us all in a commercial setting. In the event of a nuclear war, everybody loses irrevocably, and that — and not considerations of human decency — is the real reason that nobody chooses that course of action.
The less we spend on national defense and still achieve our objectives, the more we gain. The more we spend, the more we lose, because war expenses are always a waste when seen from the perspective of a healthy economy. The less money spent on defense, the fewer the resources that are squandered.
Only when the governing class sees itself as separate from the people who pay for the war (with both money and blood) does this obvious, tautological fact about war not seem to apply. The spenders always claim to need more money, because they are not the ones who earned it. In order to avoid this situation, it is important that the people who finance war and the people who profit from war should be the same people.
This is not a pacifist argument against the war machine. It is merely an observation about the way all economic transactions work. If spending is not tied to earning and immediate consequences are not visited directly on the decision makers, then there will be no end to war spending and no end to war. A government entity financed by taxes does not fight to win — it fights to spend and tax again.
There would not be any war unless war paid off. In the interest of wise resource management, it would be best to ensure that war is managed by those who can make it pay. That way, when there is no profit in war, then we can have peace.
References
Bank, Steven A., Kirk J. Stark and Joseph J. Thorndike. 2008. War and Taxes.Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Kennedy, Roger G. 1999. Burr, Hamilton and Jefferson: A Study in Character. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
we disregard the spelling errors and the odd diction and style, we can see that Jean Laffite has placed himself in an advantageous position by failing to make any recriminations in the opening sentences.
