Physics Video One - Inertial and Non-Inertial Frames of Reference

 My First Physics Video

Western History 153: How did slavery manifest itself in the Western World?

Slavery as an institution has a ubiquitous presence across a multitude of civilizations. In fact the absence of slavery for a prolonged period is more of the exception than the norm within the generalized timeline of  history.  People have been enslaved for a variety of reasons that include debt bondage, war imprisonment and the economic rationale of forced or unfree labour. 

Many slaves were tied to the land (serfs) while others were traded as one would commodities or property (chattel or traditional slavery). Whatever the rationale there is  no discounting the notion that slavery, despite its diversity of severity,  was largely a  dehumanizing experience for its victims. Its eradication in the Western world of what was once seen as a staple ought to be celebrated as a milestone in both the moral and legal development of the civilization.

The realization that it still exists elsewhere (some have put the global slave population at around 40 million – largely in West Africa and the Middle East according to the Global Slave Index – 71% of these are female and 1 in 4 are children) remains though as a blight on our universal humanity.

All of the great civilizations of the Ancient world – Egypt, Greece and Rome – made use of a slave workforce. While this brought with it economic benefits the downside of slave rebellions (such as though seen during Rome’s servile wars) added to the instability of the slave system. Slave numbers in the Roman world (largely white Europeans) numbered in the tens of millions.

Slavery during Roman Times source: historyonthenet.com

Within the European continent itself slavery decreased as populations grew after the Fall of the Roman Empire. It became more profitable to pay workers than to fund overseers/taskmasters to keep the slaves in check. The Catholic church took a hardline against the use of Christian slaves  (although this was not the case with respect to their stance on pagans, Muslims and other non-believers) and even though serfdom persisted until the mid 15^th century in Western Europe  by the year 1200 traditional slavery within the continent itself was largely a relic of earlier times. The Vikings who had engaged in slave trading had disappeared as a force and slave rebellions in the Arab world had weakened the appetite for European slaves.

Nevertheless the Mid-East slave trade that largely involved the Arabs and had a death toll of 18 million Africans and half a million Europeans lasted from the seventh to the nineteenth century.

Map showing how Africa was exploited for the Mid-East slave Trade source: cs.mcgill.ca

However on the European periphery (Russia for example) the institution (largely serfdom) still survived and with the colonization of the Americas the slave system was employed in the large single crop plantation system. Slave gang systems acted as processing lines.  They were imported from West Africa with the co-operation of local chieftains and slave traders (middlemen). Compensation for the traders was paid for by gold, trinkets, weapons and maize. 

Sir John Hawkins - Notorious British slave trader source: npr.org.uk

On almost all fronts the life of a slave was tragic. Most were acquired through inland raids by trader parties or sold to traders as part of the spoils of war. Wars were often initiated by local trading interests for the sole purpose of acquiring slaves. Many slaves were marched over great distances with captives often dying en route to the ports. At the ports the slaves were selected based on physicality and sold to the European or Arab interests. The slave population shipped across the ocean to the Americas was disproportionately male.

Map showing the Tran-Atlantic Slave Trade source: abolition. e2bn.org

Conditions on board the ships were horrendous. Privacy was non-existent and the slaves were chained together below deck in great filth often wallowing in their own waste. They were fed sustainable meals but this did not do much to reduce the horrors of the trans-Atlantic voyage that in itself cost many lives.

Upon arrival in the New World the slaves were sold to their new owners and then seasoned to acclimatize to the new conditions. While the seasoning work was often less intense then the brutal Plantation work (in sugar and cotton fields)  that followed, it too took a toll on the slaves. Adapting to a new environment with its novel diseases would prove costly.

Slaves on board a slave trade ship source: britannica.com

Historian Matthew White puts the death toll of the Atlantic Slave trade at 16 million making it the 10^th largest Genocide in human history. The trade lasted from 1452 to 1807 and involved the nations of France, Great Britain. Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United States. Slaves were acquired from the Ashanti, Benin, Dahomey, Kongo, Lunda and Oyo Kingdoms of Africa.  The chief colonies that received the slaves were Brazil, Carolina, Cuba, Georgia, Jamaica, Maryland, Saint-Domingue and Virginia. Much of the slave trade (especially the early part) coincides with the age of exploration.

Slaves being marched to the Trading Ports source: keepthefaith.co.uk
However by the 18^th century thinkers from the Scottish Enlightenment  (such as Adam Smith) made both an economic and moral case for the abolition of slavery. As a system it was simply incompatible with Liberalism. Opposition against slavery came as well from religious groups such as the Quakers. A strong Abolition movement would over the next century deal a sharp blow to slavery.

A breakdown of slavery deaths source: web.stanford.edu

Presidential....Election map 2020

This is how the situation looks right now. I think that Biden will take Wisconsin and Trump will win Florida and Arizona. Pa and Michigan are too close to call. Until Thursday I thought it was Biden's to lose in Pa. Trump though looks to have a legitimate shot in Michigan. Whatever happens the election will likely go down the wire. and we may have no answer on November 3rd. . Biden will likely win the popular vote by 2-3%.

Western History 152: Why did the War of 1812 occur?

Overlapping in time with the later portion of the Wars of the Napoleonic Era was the War of 1812 that lasted from 1812 to 1815. It was fought between Great Britain and the fledgling United States of America over the issue of maritime rights violations.

So how then did the situation come to be? American shippers had greatly prospered from trade with the French and the Spanish since the late 18^th century.  However the situation started to become more complicated when Napoleon set up his Continental System (1806) to isolate Britain as a trading power. The British responded with the so-called Orders in Council (1807). The Orders stipulated that neutral shippers had to acquire a trading license at British ports if they wished to trade with the French. If not they could be subject to attack by ships from the Royal Navy.

The decision by the British invoked a French response through the mechanism of the  Milan Decree (1807) that ordered the capture of ships that had been searched by the British. American shipping interests were caught in between this continental power struggle. They were open to attacks from both sides. For the Anglo-skeptic US President Thomas Jefferson this was a difficult predicament.

Battles of the War of 1812 source: thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

On top of all of this the Royal Navy was following  a policy of Impressment whereby  they seized American ships under the auspices of ferreting out  Royal Navy deserters.  This infringement of American rights reached a head when the US Navy frigate Chesapeake was fired on by a Royal Navy vessel and subsequently boarded. Three US citizens were seized forcing Britain to apologize for the incident to avert war.

However tension in the US congress remained high and in 1807 the Embargo Act was passed which forbade all export shipping from US ports while closing American ports to British ships. This however caused more problems than it solved. American shippers for one were not keen on the idea forcing congress to back track with a series of later acts. Meanwhile in France Napoleon claimed that he would exempt American ships from the Berlin Decree (the driving force behind the Continental system) and the later Milan follow-up as well. Britain though still refused to compromise on neutral shipping.

Meanwhile on the Indian Frontier of North America the Shawnee chief Tecumseh and his brother Tenskwatawa attempted to form a confederation to resist American encroachment on their land. The  Shawnee were defeated at the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811 by the American Governor William Harrison (a future President) but the net effect was to drive his people into an alliance with the British. At the same time Canadian/British fears about American expansion  was also intensifying the situation.

Shawnee Chief Tecumseh source: the star.com

The American President, James Madison, was trapped as well between competing interests back home. War Hawks (such as Henry Clay) were demanding a defense of American honour. Western and Southern Interests supported expansion New Englanders tended to oppose it. At the end the former carried the day. The US acted on such sentiment and attacked Canada.

From a British perspective the war was seen as somewhat of a nuisance. London was preoccupied with the Napoleonic conflict. However they couldn’t stand by while Canada (which was part of the British sphere of influence) was attacked.  Isaac Brock (the British Commander) and Tecumseh chased the Americans back to Detroit. 

Depending who you ask (American, British/Canadian) each side claims that they won the War of 1812. While the British prevented an American invasion of Canada, burnt down the White House in 1814 and achieved victories at Queenston Heights (October 1812 – a  battle that cost Brock his life) and Chrysler’s Farm (Nov 1813), the Americans had a great deal of success as well.

The USS Constitution 'Old Ironside' battling and defeating the HMS Guerriere source: history.com

The Americans burnt York (modern day Toronto) and were victorious at Fort Stephenson, the Naval Battle on Lake Erie and the Battle of Thames. All of this occurred in 1813. In addition they followed this up  with a victory at Chippawa and a brave stance at Lundy’s Lane (although this was technically an American defeat) in 1814.

The British burning of the White House (1814) source: history.com

James Madison did flee Washington ahead of the burning of the White House but this proved to be only a temporary setback for the Americans who guaranteed their northern front with a victory at Plattsburg in 1814. The later Battle of Baltimore (which inspired the writing of the Star Spangled Banner by Francis Scott Key) was perhaps the most memorable moment for the Americans in the war. Although the American retreated they inflicted heavy casualties on the British.

By December 1814 both sides came to the table to work out a schedule for the ending of the War. The Treaty of Ghent was agreed on and  later ratified by the US Congress in February 1815. Before its ratification though the future President Andrew Jackson defeated British forces at the Battle of New Orleans , which was the last major engagement of the war. This helped the US secure its gains from the Louisiana Purchase.

Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans source: history.com

                

Western History 151: How did the Concert of Europe come about?

With the Napoleonic Era coming to an end the European powers were driven to ensure that the chaos engendered by both the French revolution and the coalition wars were not to be repeated. The Congress of Vienna was the step in this direction that sought to establish a balance of power that would limit and check the growth of nationalism and liberalism.

The Viscount of Castlereagh Britain’s Foreign minister and representative at Vienna, believed that European security was best maintained through avenues of diplomacy as opposed to active armed intervention. The Concert of Europe was his creation. Castlereagh  envisioned a situation where the powers of the Quadruple Alliance (Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia) would use regular diplomatic conferences to resolve the crisis at hand.

Viscount Castlereagh source: historicalportraits.com

Four conferences were called. The first, the Congress of Aix-la-Chappelle (1818), admitted France to the concert of powers. Later conferences were held at Troppau (1820), Laibach (1821) and Verona (1822).  Unfortunately for Castlereagh he was often in the minority in his opposition to strong military interference. His liberal view often clashed with the reactionary position taken by the other powers (usually led by Metternich of Austria). in this respect the Big  Powers would use the concert system to formalize military action to quell uprisings in both Italy (1820) and Spain (1822). In fact a grouping of three of these powers (Austria,, Prussia and Russia) was formed (the so-called Holy Alliance) to oppose liberalism and its secularist intentions..

A meeting of one of the Conferences called. source: www.ehne.fr

The British public grew weary of Castlereagh's involvement in the anti-Liberal Concert and within time public sentiment would shift favouring British withdrawal from the system and the establishment of a more single focused 'go-it-alone' Pax Britannica for the island nation. Britain's powerful navy would serve as the backbone for this initiative.

Nevertheless British Romantics such as Lord Byron urged and secured London's backing for the Greek revolt against the Turks in 1821. Heavy fighting between the Greeks and Turks continued until 1829. The Wars most famous Battle was the naval skirmish at Navarino (1827) which saw the Allied forces of Russia, France and Britain victorious over their Ottoman foes thereby securing Greek independence.

Lord Byron - Poet and lover of Greek Classics. He fought in the Greek Civil War but lost his life at the Siege of Missolonghi in April 1824. source: the parisreview.com

Western History 150: What was the Congress of Vienna?

The Congress of Vienna met between September 1814 and June 1815 to re-draw the map of Europe in light of what appeared to be the end of the Napoleonic Era. In actuality the Battle of Waterloo occurred shortly after the Final Act of the Congress however this did not significantly alter the agreements reached in Vienna. 

From a philosophical standpoint the main function of the Congress was predicated on restoring the necessary Balance of Power as a safeguard against future instability on the Continent. In terms of overall scope the agreements reached represented the largest treaty yet in western history.

The key powers involved at the Congress were the Big Four (although there many smaller players) - Austria, Great Britain, Prussia and Russia.

Klemens von Metternich represented Austria on behalf of Emperor Francis II while Karl von Hardenberg was the voice of the Prussian Kaiser Frederick Wilhelm II. Tsar Alexander I negotiated on behalf of Russia with British Foreign Minister, Viscount Castlereagh representing His Majesty's Government. Napoleon has been exiled to Elba and replaced by the restored Bourbon monarch Louis XVIII who sent Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand to forward French interests.

Klemens von Metternich - A key player at the Congress of Europe. Source: thefamouspeople.com

Charles Maurice de Talleyrand - A chameleon like figure who had a knack for survival (he escaped both the ramifications of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars) 

Source: the famouspeople.com

An unfortunate feature of the Congress was the infighting. The Big Four looked to dominate the Congress but Talleyrand safeguarded France's position by appealing to some of the Congresses smaller players.

One area that created much friction was the division of German territory with a Prussian/Russian alliance clashing with a French/British/Austrian grouping. Nevertheless a great deal of territorial compromise did take place if we  juxtapose the map of Europe in 1812 to that after the Congress of Vienna.

Before Vienna the map of Europe looked something like this.

Europe in 1812 source: www.britannica.com

After Vienna it had changed to what is shown below.

Europe in 1815 source: www.britannica.com

In short Russia obtained control of Poland but surrendered Galicia to Austria. Prussia lost territory in Saxony but was compensated elsewhere in Germany (they also took over Swedish Pomerania). The Kingdom of the Netherlands was formed joining together the United Provinces and Belgium. Austria now had control of Lombardy and Venice in Italy and other regions of Southern Germany. A confederation was put in place in Germany although it was not very strong and Switzerland was granted a new constitution.

In the Italian sub-continent Piedmont's position was strengthened with their influence extended to Genoa. The Papal State was returned to the Pope ending a turbulent time in the history of the Church that in 1809 had seen the annexation of the Papal States by Napoleon and the imprisonment of the Pope.

Politically the Congress of Vienna sought to roll back the hands of time (in a sense it was reactionary). It favored the Big Powers and took a harsh stand against both nationalism and liberalism. While it did ensure a certain degree of stability in the content for the next forty years, the agreements reached would ultimately be shaken by the Revolutions of 1848 but more importantly by the Italian and German Unification drives that would feature prominently later in the 19th century. 

Source: https://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/general/persuasion-through-negotiation-congress-vienna-1814-1815

Western History 149: What was the significance of Napoleon in the long run?

The Napoleonic Era together with its predecessor the French Revolution represents watershed periods in the History of Western Civilization. Our modern political dichotomy – left versus right – emerges from the latter but it is with Napoleon that we see the genesis of the totalitarian state and the politics of nationalism.

Napoleon was not the first absolute ruler however he was the first to suffuse the trappings of the nation state, the scientific revolution, the will to power and populist glory to cement such a regime. France during the Napoleonic Era was a police state. Loyalty to the Emperor was paramount and Joseph Fouché who served as the Minister of Police ensured that the Bonaparte vision was articulated and enforced on the domestic front (although he would later conspire against Napoleon during the Hundred days). The establishment of the French consulate (1799-1804) was the earliest sign that opposition to Napoleon would be short-circuited. While the two powerful figures did clash Napoleon was ever cautious to tread lightly with his Minister of Police as he needed Fouché’s guile to diffuse the many conspiracies directed against the Emperor.

The police state ensured Napoleon’s survival in a France where the maintenance of political power since the Revolution was always tenuous. By codifying the Law and utilizing the police Napoleon could stay ahead of his enemies. It was a bizarre fusion. On one hand Napoleon respected the French Revolution for its emphasis on the Rights of Man but at the same time he was a staunch collectivist who saw the state as all encompassing, driven of course by a new enlightened figure of which he was the most authentic. The police were his necessary adjuncts.

Napoleon’s blood-stained march across Europe and the great French expansion was critical in that it helped spread the ideological gains of the French Revolution across the continent. Bonaparte was its main vehicle and Europe as he saw it, would eventually welcome what the French had to offer. In terms of the Hegelian March of History he was as he saw it on the right side of a revealed directionality.

However like most dictators Napoleon deluded himself.  As was  the case of military figures before him he was eventually brought down by his own success. If anything French expansion encouraged a counter-nationalism that bit back hard against Gallic Imperialism (look at Spain during the Peninsular War) sowing the seeds for his downfall.

Yes he had spread the ideals of the French Revolution but in doing so had morphed into a modern guardian of Ancien Regime absolutism that was simply unpalatable to those who were not French. His national chauvinism would not sit well in the longer term even if it was couched in the trappings of modernism and the science of a brand new era.

For later dictators the ‘rise and fall’ of Napoleon offered an eerie reminder that not all share a certainty of one’s inspired vision, especially when such an outlook threatens the lifeblood of freedom and what it is to be a people.